skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> “Or is this just window dressing on the way to more bad behavior?”

I think this was my comment on the last Uber article. They fired a couple of people, hired Holder and seem to be doing damage control.

This seems like more. We're going on anonymous sources here, so it will be interesting to see what really happens as a result. But it feels like Uber needs a massive culture shift as a company; like turning around an oil tanker on the edge of a hurricane type of shift.

> Uber is fighting significant employee attrition, the tens of thousands of drivers it depends on are angry about their pay, and investors are concerned that one of the most well-funded start-ups in history has come unglued.

I've met a lot of Lyft drivers who stopped driving for Uber. I've also encountered a lot of bad Lyft drivers, as Uber has a pretty strict rating policy and dismisses people with low ratings (leaving Lyft to pick up the scraps; like a driver who didn't stop for an ambulance).

Still, only people who are in tech or on sites like HN care. The majority of my friends still use Uber. Many think Uber and Lyft are just as bad to their employees. Advertising is a powerful thing. So it apathy. The vast majority of people either realize and chose to ignore, or don't care, that everything we have comes on the backs of an increasingly underpaid working class.

http://khanism.org/perspective/trapped-in-the-cubical/

Will Uber fall apart in the next year? Unlikely. They have so much capital and infrastructure, they're making money and despite all the laws they sidestep and outright break, they still manage to stay on top while hiring drivers who can barely afford to drive, thwarting unions and providing people a cheaper way to get home after they're drunk.

Uber is the pinnacle of capitalism, and despite all the recent media backlash, they will PR the fuck out of it, run their damage control, symbolically change some things, maybe legitimately change some others, but in the end, they'll be around for a long time to come. Their success if built on an extreme amount of _disruption_ and considerable risk that has paid off.

It's not in a vacuum. It is one of many industries that have climbed to the top of the world in this fashion over the past century. The rise of questionable tech companies, adding to the existing questionable oil, manufacturing and retail companies of the last century, should raise serious philosophical questions about what humanity is evolving to become.
They lived through fear during the war, lessening the anxiety they likely felt pre-war. Things look an awful lot like the relatively peaceful and comfortable times before the last wars, and the military advances are terrifying since then. This is where anxiety thrives.
i'm glad to hear it!
OK so if your tech-inclined friend sets up a Signal server, for little to nothing in return, that's automatically more trustworthy than a multi-billion dollar corporation with an ingrained and (seemingly) solid attitude regarding NOT selling user's data?

I roll an OwnCloud server for me and my family, and I know that I'm not invading their privacy, but I could very easily do so and not leave a trace of my having done it even that a pro user could find, let alone a layman. To say that Apple is less trustworthy than a given power user solely because they use closed source is ridiculous, there is zero correlation there.
> This sounds ridiculous.

It sounds less so if you read the next sentence, and the one after that.

As a mathematician who studied at Berkeley, Harvard and Princeton, I’ve known geniuses. I got to hang out with Andrew Wiles, who is credited with solving Fermat’s Last Theorem, and I met Grigori Perelman, who solved the Poincare Conjecture. They’re great guys, but they didn’t do it on their own. For each certified genius, there are at least a hundred other great people who helped achieve such outstanding results.
While I am generally pro-legalization and believe cannabis has medicinal benefits, I would caution anyone with anxiety to do their own research before trying this and be careful with dosage. THC can be harmful to people with severe anxiety or who are predisposed to things like schizophrenia. It's pretty irresponsible, IMO, to casually prescribe drugs when you don't even know the difference between a benzo and an SSRI.
People saving me from being scammed are also heroes.
"After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers."

Thank God this hero has shown up to put an end to the source of institutional oppression in our society!

How did he come by this marvelous victory, I wonder?

Oh, by being a manipulative, misogynistic, selfish asshole. How wonderful!
Lichess Analysis Board with Stockfish 8 in Asm.js
Any system where you don't control every component of that system is inherently insecure. I find it laughable that so many (especially on HN) will evangelize security while evangelizing Google, a company that literally wrote the book on and perfected the art of harvesting user data and selling it to advertisers, while tearing down Apple just because Apple refuses to let us see their code.
Yeah, I mean, it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. I don't understand why people want to think otherwise, fooling themselves isn't going to raise their IQ.

Edit: I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half of the puzzle. there are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put themselves to work.
Up until I was eight they thought I might be deficient. So they poked and prodded and eventually some people came to school and took me to the library and gave me an IQ test. Then they came back and gave me another one. And I believe another one after that, by which point I was a little disgruntled. Didn't I already take one of these? Did you lose my answers?

Turns out that the test can be tuned to a range. If you take the wrong one it loses some accuracy at the low and high end of the range, so they had to retest me. They had assumed I might be dim and gave me the wrong one. The real problem was that I was so insufferably bored all the time that I wouldn't engage. But I liked puzzles and the test had a bunch I'd never seen before, so by the last one I was taking it in the spirit it was given.

My guess is in two parts. Either your mother took the wrong one(s), or took a bogus one, or you're thinking of elements of a successful adult that the test can't measure, like common sense and social graces.

In any group of peers at that level there are bound to be people who can certainly do the work, possibly better than you, but who are painfully, even cringingly, bad at certain other life skills. It gets a little uncomfortable to acknowledge these people as geniuses. And there are people who seem not to be all that, but on occasion surprise the hell out of you by coming through in a clutch.
I had a co-worker let's call him "Bob" who is closely related to Charles Darwin. Bob grew up in Nova Scotia I don't think his family lived in England. And no his surname is not Darwin.

Another coworker "Jim" asked Bob "You're related to Charles Darwin? And you grew up on an isolated island?". (either Brier Island, NS or Long Island, NS I don't really know).

Jim was trying to get Bob going by stressing that Bob grew up on an island isolated and tried to convince Bob the people in his home town and island evolved differently due to the isolation.

I live on an island too I found it funny but I don't think Bob cared or knew what Jim was trying to say.
Can you share some numbers, what did your friend make.
Some of the article was okay (although you can cherry-pick a lot to achieve a conclusion) but Langer's study in particular seemed very dubious. They "looked younger"? Stop - that's just way too objective for me!
im not saying that the plan is particularly well executed.
The original Science paper is here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/1046.full

The section "Relativistic deflections by foreground stars" walks through the math which enables this, which I found really interesting.
I love this JSON Editor https://jsonformatter.org/json-editor
I think the author's point is that movement on the spectrum isn't constrained by some abstract concept of "gift." That is, the people on the lower end of the spectrum aren't constrained against moving to the other end by some intrinsic (in)ability.

(I'm not taking a position for or against that premise.)
If some form of anxiety and the ability to cope with it are major factors in affecting one's potential ability to do math, then in theory anyone could benefit from learning to cope with anxiety and to persist in mathematical study. The idea certainly rings true with my experience.

> it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics.

Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of exceptionally high intelligence. Mathematicians like Gödel were known for being very eccentric and many might not consider them of exceptionally high _general_ intelligence. Whether that is an accurate assessment, I doubt you or I could say with any authority.

EDIT (post-replies): Replies to this have descended into technical terminology from cognitive science, so I must remove myself from this discussion as I lack the required education [clearance?] to participate at the expected level. Nevertheless, without some objective way of measuring the psychometric "g-factor" of mathematicians throughout history up to now, I don't see this as particularly useful in addressing the issue of aptitude of the "~100% of people who advance mathematics". If you could point to any data sets on psychometric g-factors among practicing mathematicians (particularly, alongside values from the general population), that would lend some credence to what you say. The idea is very provocative.
'A Fortran Coloring Book', Kaufmann (MIT Press)
'Starting Forth', and 'Thinking Forth' by Leo Brodie.

I'd say the 'Head First' books are modern equivalents with a similar spirit.
The huge problem with this is that patients might choose it over medicine that does work. See Steve Jobs.
Shrinking the space of politically acceptable human variation, one stupid article at a time.
You could even force people on the street to subscribe to the app instead of mugging them. This solved the problem that more and more people are cashless. Also you don't have to worry about selling contraband.
Unfortunately, the signals for hiring you get from GitHub aren't great. It could help more junior developers to show off some things that they've built if their initial resume doesn't have the experience people are looking for.
Ahh yes, that self-driving tech that they totally 100% developed on their own and didn't steal from anyone else, right?
500 Best War Novels
Top Uber Exec Emil Michael to Resign
As I have said before, if the goal is to convince people who are skeptical of any aspects of the anthropogenic global warming narrative, sites like this are not effective.
Go a step further and add a disclaimer like

You should enable your privacy extensions [url to extension/page how to set up content blockers]
Considering the subject of the article, that's kind of an interesting most noteworthy (to you) takeaway.
I'd like to believe in the latter.
Yes if success is finding a girl who is willing to sleep with a stranger immediately then this would probably be the fastest way to find one. Not so good for finding a future companion/potential wife. So the suggestion is Nigerian scammers are using the same technique to identify the most gullible person as fast as possible? Putting even a small amount of extra effort is not worth because if the target is not immediately gullible they may uncover the rouse later anyway. May be, but I don't feel like wanting to give them that much credit but they are the scammers so may be they're really doing this.
What does that have to do with eating bugs?
http://imgur.com/a/dASeT

Lyft and Uber.
If not Lyft it'd be someone else though. There just aren't that many barriers to entry in this space.
What channels have you tried already? Reddit or other mediums can be helpful to get people looking at it.
It seems like many people have a natural drive that frequently goes wasted in modern society. I wonder how we could use this drive allowing people to be happier and also benefit society in the process.
I am skeptical of the headlines touting medical mistakes as the No. 3 cause of death in the US. But to be fair, someone could put up a similar site listing thousands of people who have been harmed under conventional medical care.

Your site doesn't provide enough info to compare the rate of harm. For mild ailments, which is what I assumed OP was speaking of, homeopathic treatments might have a lower rate of harm.

Iatrogenesis is a possibility with any health care. And, to give your link credit, homeopathy certainly sounds like a dangerous route for serious conditions.
> Getting that $1MM in one tax year is much worse than spreading it out over even 3-5

Not if it's long-term capital gains. The year that I banked most of my gains from my company's acquisition (sub-$1m, but just), my tax rate was substantially lower than in previous years. Paying taxes like a rich person has distinct advantages since the game is rigged in their favor.
This reminded me of Friday's Intelligent Investor column[1] entitled "Don’t Touch My Money, Just Hold My Hand". Its closing:

> So you should hire an adviser not for his or her investing prowess, but to help organize your finances, prioritize your goals, minimize your taxes, and navigate the shoals of retirement and estate planning. Done right, those services can make you far richer — and happier — than the pipe dream of investment outperformance is likely to.

Now that the index revolution has solidified, I think there's going to be a strong market for financial advisors that just offer advice in the coming years.

[1]: https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/06/09/dont-touch-my-mon... (yes, sorry, behind a paywall)
Vancouver is getting Uber back by end of 2017:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-taxi-1.401...
what difference does it make to me whether they stole from waymo or not? im not going to white-knight for google.

innocent until proven guilty, btw. some journalist writing something in a newspaper is not proof.
That's a slightly more subtle interpretation than I made, and you are probably right that this was the message. I still wouldn't agree with it, I know by experience that there are vast differences in how fast and more importantly how far you can improve your understanding of complex mathematics. Just like in sports. Anyone can improve, but some improve much faster and can reach much further.
I'm sorry you and your wife are going through this. I can't even imagine the toll it takes. Know that some random guy in Seattle is wishing for the best for both of you.
We don't have to speculate how Apple could possibly handle account recovery without entirely sacrificing security, because it's spelled out in their iOS security whitepaper: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

TL;DR: Keychain recovery relies on a cluster of hardware security modules to enforce the recovery policy. After 10 tries to guess your PIN, the HSM will destroy the keys. Apple support gates all but the first few of these tries. The paper also implies that you can use a high entropy recovery secret as an alternative, though I can't figure out how you would enable that.

This seems like a pretty reasonable point in design space to me. Of course, you are relying on Apple's trustworthiness and competence to implement this design. But that is true without recovery, since the client software is also implemented by Apple.
Well, you can use something like Isso, perhaps:
https://github.com/posativ/isso
Yes, sorry. You need to overwrite the initial value (H0) too, in the constructor. You can do that if you can touch the equivalent of the private member variables.

SHA-512/256 may be used to hash a message, M, having a length of 𝓁 bits, where 128 0 ≤ 𝓁 < 2.
The algorithm is defined in the exact same manner as SHA-512 (Sec. 6.4), with the following two exceptions:
1. The initial hash value, H(0), shall be set as specified in Sec. 5.3.6.2; and
2. The 256-bit message digest is obtained by truncating the final hash value, H(N), to its left-most 256 bits.

(from §6.7 in http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/fips-180-4....)

EDIT: I trust 'tptacek (in sibling comment) that if there is no chance of protocol confusion, there is no advantage to the different initial value.
Still a thing almost 2000 years later:

That Mitchell and Webb Look - Football https://youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU
You can't build an iPhone from scratch, but you can build one from parts. Of course, it would need the magic signature from Apple in order to make Touch ID work unless the home button and system board were bought together.
Charming Therapeutic Chatbot Debuts on Your FB Messenger
I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half of the puzzle. There are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put themselves to work. Intelligence can't make you productive all alone. Which is why I said it the way I did, because otherwise I would imply that they are mathematicians because they are intelligent, where I was trying to say that in order to advance mathematics, you essentially have to be very intelligent.

That said...

> Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of exceptionally high intelligence.

I'm referring to the psychometric g factor type of intelligence. Not the "I know a real smart gal" type. g is shockingly consistent, measurable, and clearly an important part of many human behaviours.

Intelligence is a very specific thing, people can be exceptionally good at things without being exceptionally intelligent, but people can not be exceptionally intelligent merely by being exceptional at something.
Thats true (I've wrapped native code before) but if you use any native code you can’t use expos over the air updates or the qr code scanner. So it wouldn’t solve the parent comments problem, in that scenario, which is actually quite common.

Also, the last time I checked ejecting from expo, which you will need to do to use native code, was a bit of a pain. That was a few weeks ago so maybe they have stream lined the process since then.
While he'd been successful writing language-specific books, he stopped writing them in the early 70's, because he recognized that the important principles didn't change. Super important thinker about software and the people who make it.
There is a way of looking at this phenomenon in terms of an optimal path problem, Fermat's Principal of Least Time.

Suppose you have the following situation

x1 | n2
|
|
n1 | x2

We have two different materials, with index of refraction n1 and n2. Now suppose that light has traveled between points x1 and x2, we can ask the question, what path did it take? (Note here, we are asking about classical rays of light, so we're thinking in terms of geometrical optics, not quantum :) )

When light travels through the left hand side, it's traveling at a velocity, c/n1, but in the right, it will travel at c/n2.

It turns out that we can answer the question of which path the light takes by asking "Which path takes the shortest amount of time?". From that assumption you can actually re-derive Snell's Law.

An example when n2 is very large (and thus moves slower on the right hand side):

x1 | n2
\ |
\|
n1 |--x2

the light will travel more distance on the left hand side because it can move faster there, and thus get close as possible to the destination. It will then make the last bit of distance in the right hand side.

Now Snell's law says

n1 sin θ_input = n2 sin θ_output

Since n2 is very large, the only way to make this work is to make sin θ_output very small. So we see in this case at least, both approaches agree as to what will happen.

So it turns out this principal works even in the case of gravitational spacetime distortion, and can be applied there as well.
DLL Suite 9 Crack Serial and Activation Key Full Version Download
One story, from a book called “Tales of a Magic Monastery,” describes a parish priest on retreat who seeks guidance from a monk about his own spiritual life. His response comes in the form of a question: What do they need?

Brilliant!
This only matters if there's an existing protocol that uses truncated SHA-2 you need to interoperate with (and your premise is there is not).

There is no functional advantage to having a different IV for SHA-2 5-2/256.
General intelligence is not _that_ general. You can be extremely eccentric without lowering your g factor.
TweenMax tips: beautiful animations with TimelineMax()
Seems an odd takeaway after "memory, vision, hearing, and even physical strength had improved"
Most CEOs aren't good leaders.
I agree, that looks suspicious. Why people would need adware removal on iPhone when there is no malware in the first place? And judging by app design it doesn't look like its developer cares about conversion.
Also, if you are allowing / disallowing 3rd party scripts (and removing state in between) you do not have a permanent fingerprint anyway.

But my assumption, even though I take every reasonable countermeasure I can think of, is that G & co. still know a lot more about me than I would have liked. But that's something no amount of technology will solve.
How to (legally) advertise what Facebook deems 'Prohibited Content'
Plugging your startup idea is taboo
People with great ideas struggle to spread the word because it may seem taboo to plug your idea or something you're working on. I put together a website where you can post your idea, project, website, or startup for free and not feel spammy or guilty. Hope it helps. www.Runway16.us
This is a serious issue, and I think it's a problem of cryptography education.

On the one hand, we (rightly, in my opinion) teach people who haven't studied cryptography that they shouldn't try to implement it on their own. This is good, because cryptography is mostly applied math (hard) and careful software implementation (also hard), and mixing these two hard things without shooting yourself in the foot is very hard.

On the other hand, developers who follow this advice don't have a clear way to find the answer to questions like, "Which of these great algorithms do I want?" It's easy to find sound recommendations for which algorithms are well-studied and essentially safe; it's less easy to find guides that compare and contrast algorithms along nuanced axes like computational cost, interoperability, security margin or adaptability.

This leads developers to come to their own conclusions based on imperfect understanding of the metrics they can quantify:

"I need to encrypt something - Serpent has a much higher security margin than AES (Rijndael), I should probably go with that."

"I need to hash something - Keccak won the SHA-3 contest, so I should use that instead of BLAKE."

"I need to authenticate something - if I choose two strong algorithms it will be better than one, so I'll use AES-CTR and HMAC-SHA, instead of an AEAD."

"More bits means higher security, so I'll use AES256 and SHA-512."

I'm noticing this more and more in online discussion, where people seem to be talking past each other about things like the "safety" of algorithms without discriminating between other metrics like speed. In my opinion, it would be better for people to consider "safety" as a mostly binary property if they haven't done enough due diligence to know why one algorithm has a higher or lower security margin than another one, because the other metrics are so much more important.

There probably needs to be better cryptography education as well, something that is a bit higher than "do this, don't do this" and which provides some elaboration about the whys inherent to different security margins.