skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My question is why does Keccak not use a one-way function instead of a permutation.

> The inverse is also required for decryption: If you encrypt as ciphertext = permutation(plaintext + key), decryption is plaintext = inverse(ciphertext) - key.

This is not how encryption/decryption works with Keccak. Keccak is used to create a stream (it is then XORed with the plaintext or ciphertext).
There's a reason they are very similar:

http://www.scaled.com/projects/stratolaunch
I'm not a cryptographer, but looking at the attack a bit more closely, I don't think this will work. Someone let me know if I'm wrong.

For this attack to work, one needs to know the full 256 bits, so that they can continue with appending their own data to the hash's internal state to get a valid hash. But in this case, they don't have the complete internal state.

So they can't really continue because the missing 32 bits are required to continue. Even though it is just 32 bits, they can't just validate the hash in anyway because they don't even know the complete message, just the length of the message. So the validation process isn't really possible.

Why this works for non-truncated hashes is because the attacker knows that the hash is valid for secret+data and also the hash internal state (which is the hash itself), but if the complete internal state isn't known, there's no way to attack it.
Check out California to see the sheer lunacy of the ballot system in action. Voter apathy combined with an incredibly uninformed voting population, and on top of that the inability to make any political modifications to a prop once it's passed? Yeah. Brilliant plan for populism, but otherwise not so good.

It gave us prop 8, written deliberately confusing to sway the vote. It gave us prop 47, which was a truckload of measures, many good, some horrible. Resulting in a huge increase in property crimes, which was a side effect that you'd only realize if you actually read the damn thing instead of the summary. Voters don't have that attention span. It gave us prop 69, essentially a state-run DNA database - into which you're entered on arrest instead of conviction. Because "but the children" always sells.
A 1967 Proposal for Single-Launch Piloted Venus Flybys in 1972, 1973, and 1975
Silk Road founder loses appeal
> The guy who did Silk Road was involved in the deaths of 6 users. He got life without parole.

Kind of funny since that is not how things went down [1] and we don't know who really started Silk Road.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)#Arrest...
Well, the opioid epidemic is arguably a subset of a broader problem including poorly managed antibiotics and pesticides. Genetic engineering is part of the fat tail here.
Isn't there an inevitable aspect of diminishing returns here?
For example, you can't run Moore's Law forever since there are physical constraints to how close things on your chips can be.

It is obvious that any problem to which people have not turned their attention to probably has lots of low hanging fruits that will give you 'progress' very quickly and relatively easily.
A black hole swallowing our planet whole would have an even larger death toll, I think.

The point is that past performance gives a baseline that can used to judge both possibility and probability of such outcomes.
Brutalist App Redesigns
Although this may irritate Thiel given his libertarian philosophy, the reason is rather clearly the decline of focused public research initiatives.

Whereas previously we had universities and government research arms inventing cyclotrons, rockets, GPS and internet systems, we now have an outcome where long term research, which requires a long time with unpredictable returns and a high chance of failure is cast aside in favor of rapid, iterative improvements.
It's brutally expensive, unfortunately. Moving from 2D to 3D you go from needing O(n²) particles to O(n³) particles to fill a box. That's an awful increase in complexity, and it really limits the size of what you can do.

With that said, NVIDIA has a boatload of money, top-notch hardware skills and fluid simulation experts like Matthias Müller-Fischer working on the problem. NVIDIA Flex[1] is amazing to behold.

[1]: https://youtu.be/pfonMfP__Ks
I asked the question in the Kickstarter -- hopefully they'll answer back!
The old arguments evaporate in a cloud of red smoke

Only if you exclude traffic congestion as a problem. Self-driving cars can help with some optimization (i.e. closer following distance on freeways, less traffic disruption due to erratic drivers), but they aren't going solve the overriding problem of too much traffic in the city.

San Francisco is already experiencing extra congestion from the precursor to self-driving cars, car sharing [1]

And wide-spread use of self driving cars may make congestion even worse. Instead of the office worker driving to work and parking in the garage all day long, his car will drop him off,
then will go drive around and look for someone else to pick up (or will seek cheap parking outside of the city center),
so that's an extra car on the road.

And anyone that's tried to drive past a school in the morning or afternoon knows that traffic is going to be a nightmare during commute hours when every office building is surrounded by cars that are dropping off/picking up the 1000+ workers in each building.

Not to mention that your "zero-carbon" (battery-powered)" cars don't exist, even if powered by solar cells (that were created by non-carbon fuel sources), the processes that go into mining materials and manufacturing a car still emit tons of CO2 and we are a long way away from making all manufacturing carbon neutral.

Single occpancy cars are just not very efficient at moving people. A single train can carry 2000+ passengers and deliver them every few minutes. In comparison, car freeway lane carries around 1000 cars/hour.
There is a difference being doing the same job for 20 years and being at the same place for 20 years.

If you're doing different things within the same company every few years, and taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles, then employers will likely look very favourably upon that because having that progression shows that you will likely produce a lot of value for them.

Why? With the exception of a few niche domains (scientific research, pharma, etc), it doesn't take very many years to master a domain. The problem set can only get so varied and complex. In fact, it's quite the opposite; problems tend to get less complicated over time as they get more automated/well known. Easier to solve == cheaper to hire for.

Most people that have been with a "young" company for 20 years that hasn't turned itself over and are high value will likely have large networks and will be somewhat well known by dint of having closer ties with the founding/senior leadership.

So if you're doing the same rote job for n years, and the costs of hiring someone to replace you and train them are greater than the costs of keeping you, then you are vulnerable to "redundancy." While there is NOTHING WRONG with wanting to do the same thing forever and prioritize other things, this is the risk that comes with that. (I personally have no idea how people achieve that; there is so much opportunity in the world to make money, and being restricted by money sucks).

This was true of cotton millers, milkmen, switchboard operators, and is still true for developers and operators.
Do you mean in terms of actually planning the vacation? Or in terms of dealing with being out of work?
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Your role sounds similar to Cloud Solution Architect role I read about. Is there some overlap there?
I started encountering many doctors who blanket refuse to prescribe anything addictive, under any circumstances, about 1-2 years ago.
Safari: A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded (Update)
Shameless self-promotion, but together with some friends I wrote a book for O'Reilly Media on KSP!

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Kerbal-Players-Guide-Easiest-Program/...

O'Reilly: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920035138.do

Safari: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-kerbal-pl...
I think you can find 1-2% money market accounts to park a lot of your cash in that you still need to be liquid.

Otherwise, if you have a very large amount of money, you can always throw it into other more secure investments and just take out lines of credit to use if you need.
javascript seems to handle it ok...

http://www.2600online.com/et.php
Or they will get properly informed of the risks and have their dosages monitored by a doctor who is properly informed of the risks.

Instead of getting handed opiates like they are harmless because the doctors believed the drug companies who tried to pass them off as safe for unmonitored use.
No prices?
Terrorist plots are foiled on at least a daily basis. If we didn't try as hard as we do, we'd see a lot more success.
Seeing a lot of comments sugesting that strictly controlling the supply side is bad because lots of people legitimately in pain would be suffering. So how do other countries deal with this? The US consumes something like 80% of the worlds opioid supply
Same reason everything else makes it - enough people thought it looked interesting to upvote.
Here's an answer: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/47872/why-is-kecc...

1) it forces you to allocate more memory (to do the Davies-Mayer construction)

2) it complicates the security analysis because you get collisions (if you do not use a permutation, it means you have an injective construction)
I'm constantly amazed, as vulnerable as we are, that in 20 years, there has only been one significant terrorist action within the United States.
why would that form an addiction?
I tend to agree, as ReplicaSets are, as the k8s docs describe, the 'next-generation replication controller', though I couldn't find a place where they state that RCs are in fact deprecated. The section on service discovery constructs an example using RCs, and I'm guessing other sections do as well, so the change may be non-trivial.
Been following his YouTube channel for quite a while now. Very fascinating
My understanding is that you multiply the cost by the probability, or use a power of the cost (since the impact of a huge liability or disabling disaster is usually more than the accounted-for direct damage).
>The Empire State Building was built in 15 months in 1932. It’s taken 12 years and counting to rebuild the World Trade Center. (Source: 36:00)

This is more a commentary on a broken and toxic local political and regulatory climate in New York City than a point about a lack of engineering innovation. Still, perhaps that's part of what he's talking about for some of his critiques.
The United States is consistently ranked as a top 5 most litigious country by various metrics. This may not be the main cause of the problem, but it certainly doesn't help.
Interesting read, thanks! Btw I did enjoy his books when I was a teenager, but never fought they where real...
I love that someone took the time and effort to fix the bugs in E.T.: http://www.neocomputer.org/projects/et/
Title should read "[...] Putin critic's [...]", as it's the critic's film. He's also Putin's critic, but the film is the object in the sentence.
It's also worth mentioning that a lot of fields that you wouldn't normally think of as ecology use ecological tools like the vegan package. A good example is studies of the human microbiome. Studying the microbiome you want to measure the biodiversity of various samples from diseased and healthy individuals -- which is basically the same problem as traditional ecologists face when looking at, say, a polluted versus pristine environment.
The Google Compute Engine is really easy to use, and the browser console makes it easy to treat it like a Linode or Digital Ocean type host, if that's all you want.

I recently transitioned off of Linode (after about a decade?!) to Google. Largely, this was because I needed a lot more disk space to mirror some large public databases, and it was significantly cheaper to do this with Google than it would have been with Linode. This is because Linode couples the disk space with both the RAM and the number of processors. I needed more disk, and would have liked more RAM, but had no use for more processors.

With this announcement, Google has now decoupled the RAM from the number of processors, which is a development I'll be taking advantage of.
Progress on the Gilectomy
Does anyone have any insight into how the dual flight decks are utilized?
Slavery has been illegal for over 150 years.

Many people say that they don't have the option to change jobs, yet when they get laid off or the factory where they work shuts down, they find a way to survive even if they have to make sacrifices to do so.
>All numbers are floating point

But why?
Is there some inverse of the firefly's sync protocol that if they all followed would turn a synchronized swarm back into a chaotic one?
So true, I spent about 150 hours on that game in 2 months and apparently that's pretty light compared to a lot of people (probably explained by me not being a gamer and this being the only game I've completed in the last decade other that Leo's Fortune), I launched a rocket and have since uninstalled it. Fortunately I found the latter stage of the game such a trudge that I've got little inclination to go back to it - although I think 0.15 will solve many of my gripes so I'm avoiding reading about it for now.

Factorio is nicknamed Cracktorio for a reason :-(
Moscow is also tremendously dense. It's sprawled out because it has so many people in it, but the vast majority of those people are packed into apartment buildings. The same goes for all other major urban centers. A typical Russian (or rather, ex-Soviet) cityscape looks like this, and can go for miles:

http://images.e-flux-systems.com/2014_04_Bric-III-Yugo-Zapad...

Now imagine an airburst nuclear explosion over this, just low enough to maximize the blast wave.

There's a reason why Soviets heavily invested into protecting the populace from such attacks - the entire Moscow Metro system doubles as a nuclear bomb shelter, complete with blast doors.
Uber has a solid worldwide presence. Lyft does not.

You can go into nearly any state and most countries (I think all of the first world countries and a bunch of second world ones too) and book an Uber.

As long as that stays true and Uber continues to grow outside of the US, Lyft doesn't stand a chance.

If Lyft could light up worldwide scale right now, they absolutely would have. Something is holding them back. It's likely new rideshare laws that Uber spawned due to it having first mover advantage.

Disclosure: I am a Lyft user and deleted my Uber account.
I'm sure you already know, but it's completely irrational to fear the things out of your control. There's literally nothing to be accomplished by doing so.
> And what most people miss, is that the 3.4 billion is the 30% cut Uber takes from a ride.

From what I have read/heard, they count all of Uber pool in revenues so this statement isn't entirely correct.
The Google Cardboard of AR
Poorly.

Large-scale, high-consequence, strongly systemic or correlated events are difficult to model and describe.

Death-by-asteroid is one of the more interesting cases. That would be a bad day for you (or your descendants), but also, quite likely, many others, when it happens. The days aren't frequent, but they're big.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/13/de...

More generally, there's a lot summary statistics don't tell you.

https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/samestats
They're paying drivers 70% of the fare, so no.

It's a very good question. They must burn a lot of money on developing self driving cars and other research. But can it really be this much?
Right- but the explanation in the 'explorable' is that the effect happens due to the simple pattern of Step 1: When you see a nearby firefly flash, nudge your clock a little bit forward, Step 2: That's it. Problem is, the description of what's happening and what is actually happening doesn't match.
Perfectly legal in Canada. Don't be hyperbolic, it doesn't help anything.
Re: How this forms addiction - the levels prescribed are for a 12 hour period, but since the drug only lasts 8 hours, a patient is getting a dose above the recommended level that it should last.

Marketed:
120mg over 12 hours
or
80mg over 8 hours

Reality:
People that take the 120mg over 12 hours realize it only lasts 8 hours thus they are taking 40mg more than they should be on the schedule that makes sense to them to avoid pain.
1. Click "web" link below story here on HN
2. Click first result on Google

WSJ doesn't paywall if the referrer is Google.
I'd recommend reading The Rise and Fall of American Growth for some useful numbers on this. Between 1870 and 1970 the standard of living increased so dramatically due to a few key inventions that the author calls "onetime" events. Technology since then has led to marginal improvements compared to, say, the widespread adoption of the filtered drinking water networks.
Well... yes, because if we got used to terrorism, it would break the media cycle and cease to terrorize, and people would stop doing it!
yeah but not all the people taking them are in that sort of pain. most are just ordinary drug addicted people
This is a good point. The annual stats for terrorism looked very different in 2001 vs 2000. And the nature of terrorism presents an unknown level of threat that could make the events of 2001 look like a firecracker in comparison. Your biological weapon example is excellent, there are those who have the will and only lack the way to make it happen today.
The problem I have with this is that Opiates have been known to be highly addictive for how long?

I do feel like doctors should have questioned the notion that these drugs were completely safe.
I think the OP means black swans happen. And so terrorism should be considered a black swan sort of risk. But if we're doing that then shut down all the various financial institutions that may cause such risk as they have been shown to do more than once in the past. However, thus far the black swan risk from terrorism seems to be a few thousand people in the time frame of around two to three decades... globally. The cost seems to be in the trillions but that has little to do with the terrorists, and much to do with the management of the response to terror... and also management of the risk posed by it.
I completely agree with the author on this. The old Unicode 9.0 best practice made sense for a UTF-8 decoder that consumed input using a state machine, and like the article says, if you accept the correct byte-ranges in each state as in Table 3-7, your state-machine-based decoder will implicitly reject every kind of invalid sequence, including overlong encodings, encoded UTF-16 surrogates and encoded out of range characters. A state machine also makes other things trivial, like validating UTF-8 input without outputting characters and writing a streaming UTF-8 to UTF-16 converter. Another property is that it rejects invalid input as soon as possible, eg. as soon as it consumes input that can't possibly be part of an invalid sequence.

This is an example of a particularly elegant UTF-8 decoder which uses a state machine:
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/utf-8/decoder/dfa/

The proposed Unicode 11 best practice suits a decoder that checks for overlong sequences, encoded surrogates and out of range values as a sort of post-validation step, after consuming all the bytes of a potentially valid UTF-8 sequence. Not only is this different to the behaviour of every existing decoder except for ICU, it also seems less elegant, more complicated and more error prone to me. If I understand correctly, even bytes like 0xc0 and 0xf5, which never form part of a valid UTF-8 sequence, won't be rejected immediately in this kind of decoder.

The article makes a pretty solid argument for why this difference in behaviour matters, even though it's just a best practice and not an official requirement. The two key points in this for me are that most existing UTF-8 decoders produce identical results matching the Unicode 9.0 best practice, and that there was an actual bug in Chrome when two internal UTF-8 decoders produced differing results. I think I'd make a stronger conclusion though: Not only should they keep the current recommended best practice, they should also elevate it to a requirement in order to prevent bugs like the one in Chrome from happening in future. Most existing UTF-8 decoders are already compliant, and it would be a nice property of UTF-8 if all byte sequences, including invalid ones, decoded to the same sequence of codepoints in every decoder.
This is exactly it, and people who are complaining about access are missing the point. There is absolutely no way you can count the cash you make from the volume of these pills and think "this is roughly in proportion to the number of people dying of stomach cancer".

It's a serious problem that is killing people, and it's worth taking a shot at without being shouted down every time by someone who thinks you're trying to take their pills away.
Most large commercial lawsuits settle before they ever go to court. From my anecdotal experience, maybe only 10% go to court. Litigation is a very long and expensive process. Some files last decades before they resolve. When litigation is ongoing, both sides are engaging in legal wrestling to try and get the most favorable position. Once one side has gained a clear advantage, they will start pressuring the other side to settle. Its very expensive to go all the way to court and then lose, so most corporations will concede and settle once they lose the upper-hand. Therefore if a case does finally make it to court, its because (1) both sides have a decent chance of winning, or (2) one side - or both - hate each other so much that they refuse to settle. The first option, (1), is the most common: the case is so close that its essentially a coin flip. Remember, you only hear about the cases that go to court, and most settlements are confidential and never hit the news. So the public's perception of commercial law doesn't include the full picture.

I'm almost positive that litigation will never be fully automated. Some aspects of it already have (such as document review and discovery). But the majority of the work (negotiating with the other side, questioning witnesses, arguing pre-trial motions in court, researching legal questions, writing memos and briefs, advising clients on strategy) is far too reliant on humans to ever be replaced.
Any elaboration on what is interesting exactly?