skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I spent a few years working on embedded keypad products. Often there is a hardware keypad scanner that takes care of much of the details, not allowing the programmer this level of control. Your driver configures the rows and columns (inputs and outputs), the scan rate, debounce time, etc, and the hardware will monitor for edge transitions, then perform a scan, capture the result in a register and assert an interrupt. It will likely have a double (or more) buffer mechanism to prevent dropped events due to software latency.

In low power/mobile situations this allows the host CPU to sleep as much as possible and even the scanner, which walks the rows (or cols) need not be running all the time.

While many SOCs have a integrated keypad interface, there are also keypad controller ICs (some GPIO expanders have the ability to double as keypad controllers) that free the programmer from having to manually implement the scanner logic. I suspect these types of chips would be found in a typical USB keyboard. Software may still have to deal with additional debouncing and ghost keys depending on the complexity of the IC.

Edit: I suppose one could configure the keypad controller to apply no debouncing and then perform a software debounce the way you describe.
I think you are confusing the wealth (the richest) and the high-income individuals.

Membership in the first club is more or less permanent, while the second club has a revolving door. A bunch of members of the high-income club - employees of a high-tech startup, hedge fund managers, movie producers, inventors, lottery winners, wrongfully imprisoned individuals, victims of malfeasance or drug side effects - get one large paycheck once in their life, representing sometimes decades of work at below-market rates.

They won't have another Powerball jackpot, court settlement or a startup IPO next year.
I feel like this is a bit of a straw man.

Does american culture resist coercion? Yes, excluding a few big bandwagon issues and incidents. But that's not really the point.

One might say when something needs to get decided or done, does the country get together and get it done or bicker and in-fight?
Let's check some big "needs to get this taken care of issues":

* Slavery - Somehow, the "land of the free" was one of the last developed nations to condemn this practice. And while racism is a separate issue, even over a century later we're still having large public arguments about whether the slaves had it "easy" (?!)

* Climate Change - There is largely universal consensus that if current trends continue, there has been and will continue to be an accelerating increase in human suffering. Every developed nation on the planet agrees, almost every qualified scientist in the US agrees. We can accept that our scientists can predict the movements of celestial bodies across distances mind-bogglingly vast down to the minute, but trust our "guts" over them. Some might argue that the US is rejecting a goal chosen by everyone else, and doing so as a brave stand of individualism. I'd argue they are just demonstrating the issue.

Do I need to go on?
Democratically elected with 99.6% of the vote, according to a picture in the article. So either a massive campaign of coercion, or redolent of a quote about whichever of North Korean Kims it was who was reported to have got 18 holes in one the first time he played golf: "the more outrageous the lie, the greater the display of power".
Right, what I meant was, if someone wanted to see your video, they'd either need to ask you or be an investor invited by YC.
FTC may take a look at AI
I was young and thought it was cool. I was probably 10 or 11 at the time.
The feeling I get reading this, is that there's lots of groupthink and a whole lot of luck among VC's...
Here some results for VSCode: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/27378

Update: on my system Emacs has an average of 6ms vs VSCode 17ms.
While patent trolling is a legal shakedown, I don't see the relevance to binding arbitration?
This is was my thought too, but most keyboards have a matrix and use chips with less inputs which makes the problem harder. There are theoretical ways to write it better (you would need to have extra state for all buttons) but most firmware I have seen just samples at a rate such that the period is longer than the longest bounce.
In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3...

Consumers can usually sue corporations at a court in their own jurisdiction. Many European countries also allow class action law suits. Yet, we have few law suits against corporations. There are other reasons for this:

- consumers are not awarded punitive damages,

- court fees are higher (usually a percentage of what you ask for),

- if the consumers lose they pay not only their own lawyer, but (to an extent decided by the court) also the lawyer representing the corporation,

- many European countries have consumer "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations,

- many European countries have a variety of consumer complaint boards that handle small claims efficiently and at low cost.

Few who know consumer matters in both the US and the EU would trade the European system for the American.
There is more than enough sun falling on the ground in deserts to supply all the energy humans use at ridiculously small conversion efficiencies. It doesn't do us any good because we don't know how to capture that.
I'm curious if you're aware of the Materials Genome Initiative. It's a group of materials scientists in the US who are very sympathetic to these problems and want to build out infrastructure for big data analysis of materials. We're based mostly at NIST, where most of the huge datasets are generated or stored.
Maybe class action lawsuits are inadequate but the people driving to get rid of them aren't proposing instituting stringent regulation first.
Firefox must continue to exist if we are to have any browser without an economic incentive to be user-hostile. If they need performance traces from websites, and they have an open, clear discussion of how to preserve as much user privacy as possible, they should collect them.
I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case...

1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid;

2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by the coffee from this McDonald's and others, and in prior cases the courts ordered McDonald's to turn the temp down based on expert testimony;

3. mcDonalds refused to comply with prior court orders, because a cost benefit analysis, you see truckers love their coffee boiling hot bc it stays hot longer, and it made financial sense to keep there main market happy and pay these lawsuits out rather than truckers potentially go elsewhere for coffee;

4. To punish McDonald's for ignoring prior court orders they awarded the woman punitive damages (while not rare is out of the norm), and she was awarded (I think) $3M in punitive damages which equals 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales;

5. Lesser known is McDonald's appealed the judgement and it was reduced, they and all other big companies took the original award and created the anti-litigation PR campaign we all know today, lady spills hot coffee and court awards millions
I will openly admit that I am skeptical of any initiative that has the Backing of the W3C, Microsoft or Google. All of which have proven they are more than willing to sacrifice user privacy and security

So since Web Extensions / Browser Extensions was started by all 3 of those entities with FF adopting them I am very very cautious of them
For who? Is it a good thing for everyone? Why, why not?
Inheritance is not a way to express sum types, it's a form of subtyping. A sum type is like a discriminated union, it can only be one thing at a time. Subtyping allows a value to have multiple (related) types simultaneously, which is much more expressive. I suppose you can use one level of single inheritance to emulate a sum type, but you could just as well emulate it with a discriminated union in Go, e.g. a struct with a type identifier and an interface{} holding the value.
Cassini's “Grand Finale” Could Solve Saturn's Lingering Mysteries
Hagerty Acquires Techstars Mobility Graduate Classics&Exotics
Odd. I'm a full stack developer and I find my experience to be the opposite...or at least it doesn't matter what your other skills are if don't have 2 years experience in hot-javascript-framework-X (right now, React). I'm probably just a bad salesman though, but I just don't feel like I'm very in demand.

Doesn't matter that I rolled our whole architecture and infrastructure, did all of the ETL work, can handle security, web accessibility & design, and basically run point on all projects. I use basic, unsexy, reliable tools.
The point is not whether this method is "sufficiently anonymous", the point is:

I don't want my browser to collect any kind of data.
If you're either hoarding or spending 99.99% of all new bitcoins, that's going to cause issues in the market. But the other thing you can do with majority hashpower is double-spend your coins, then fraudulently verify the transaction as if it were valid.
Wow, I've been a Crashplan Home Customer since 2011. What a bunch of jerks.
You're oversimplifying things to an absurd level. A lot of American entrepreneurial wealth is made from goods & services made and sold in the US, so I don't see how American Foreign policy has any effect on it.

Sure the established corporations do make a ton of money from international trade (Oil, Manufacturing, Electronics etc.).
Isn't there a world of difference between, say, blocking someone from commenting on your blog, or even booting someone off twitter, and blocking domain registration?
As a sysadmin I consider this a UI improvement. Please make space heaters unusable. Your other equipment will last that much longer.
The hat version is probably a result of synthesis with another saying: "the thief's hat is burning" (на воре шапка горит).
> ICMP is dangerous, and needs to be blocked

I've fought this argument countless times and lost. Not being able to ping a server, check for "destination unreachable" messages, etc. leads to frustrating troubleshooting sessions.
Since it isn't clear what "number" you are talking about, thought I ask. Also, for ease of reference, here's the information on the company for the link above:

"Modular Science – Outdoor robot farming: Elon Musk may be concerned about robots taking over the world, but Modular Science just wants robots to farm our vegetables. The startup, which currently has robots out in the field (!) in Petaluma, CA, is aiming to automate 99 percent of the processes involved in vegetable farming within the next six months with their specialized farming bots. Modular Science is looking to charge $2,000 per acre, which they say is half of what farms are currently paying to for human labor."
Rambus Adds Security to RISC-V
>Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up serving neither to compensate consumers nor really to deter illegal conduct.

You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions.

Class actions are an ideal instrument for redress of harm where the harm to any individual is small, but the harm is widespread, meaning that a company is cheating or hurting many people but it's not worth any one individual's effort or expense to sue them.

This is the source of the fallacy you commit: the idea that this involves large compensation for consumers. Consumers ARE compensated in class actions, it's just that their individual harm is small so their individual payout is small.

So if, say, Comcast has been secretly overcharging customers $10/month, it's not a big enough problem for any one of them to sue. But as a class of millions of Comcast consumers, it may be worth it, and can have a real punch at that level.

This is the other part of your error: of course class actions are "lawyer-driven" because, again, the harm to any individual is small. It's the lawyers and firms pursuing the class action that are doing the work and organizing the action, often on contingency. Related to your first mistake, you and many others see the lawyers getting a big payment as "stealing" from the class when they are being compensated for the work they did and winning restitution for harms that no individual consumer would pursue, and the class members STILL get fairly compensated for the small harm done to them.

Finally, and perhaps the largest part of your error, this does and, in the US, is really the only way to, deter illegal conduct because, again, this illegal conduct is premised on the idea that it's too small for any person to care or find it worthwhile to fight. By organizing a class action you enable consumers to hit back and stop this kind of behavior, and put companies on notice that they can't try these underhanded tactics without risk.

I agree that a regulation model would be preferable to this kind of litigation, but until we have regulation we must use the litigation tools we have available.

Be very wary of screeds against class actions, they're almost certainly corporate propaganda.
Yeah I found that statement rather classist/racist
Linux is designed to run on pretty much anything, OS/2 was pretty pirateabld and even given away for free at one point. I don't really see that pirating the OS made much difference especially since almost everyone got windows for free with their PC.

Windows came to dominate because of Office. You only pirate something you already want to use.
I'd have called that a PRNG, because to me there were only two main categories. Pseudo-random, where it's designed to be unpredictable, and actually random where it is based on an external hardware source of true random information.

A CSPRNG is surely a type of PRNG. Is that not right?

Their comment doesn't really seem correct to me. The title is "Cracking random number generators (xoroshiro128+)" which seems pretty accurate to me. The article definitely doesn't seem to say it's breaking anything other than a very specific, flawed random number generator.
He's at least a B list celebrity, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
When laws do not give you privacy, paintball guns will (see speed cameras in Chicago for examples of how citizenry will _rightly_ deal with this)
Dupe
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15052866
> and politics are really dominating most of the conversations on Twitter at this moment.

I believe this to be societal. Many people simply want to get likes & RTs - which are easy grabs if you post e.g. a photo of Trump blindly looking into the sun, or whatever. People like to hate Trump, people like to laugh, so naturally they will post stuff that makes people laugh about Trump, therefore they all get likes & RTs, while your feed remains a firehose of "dump Trump" and memes.
Because you're cheating - I saw some Mexicans picking them for you.
I wouldn’t say this work is novel in the general case of “PRNGs are not CSPRNGs”. You can throw a constraint solver at most any PRNG and given sufficient output determine the state fairly easily. As a datapoint, doing this for xoroshiro took me half an hour: https://gist.github.com/karanlyons/805dbcc9e898dbd17e06f2627...
From the article:

> (The economists used 34-year windows to stay consistent with their original chart, which covered 1980 through 2014.)
Differential privacy does not ensure complete information theoretic security as you say. There is a parameter ε that determines the amount of privacy, and in this case you do not get to set it, somebody else does.
Well most of the British Empire unravelled soon after WW II because the country was broke and exhausted, hence there was little appetite for clinging onto those overseas possessions that began clamouring for independence.
Not all. Some have switched to Gregorian calendar.
Mastering a language is not the same as reading the entire spec, or even internalizing that spec. Scheme or Forth or Io are all probably smaller than Go. Perhaps even smalltalk is (the Smalltalk 80 spec is larger, but contains some of the library, tutorials, examples, and the entire spec for compiler and the VM).

If you really want an extreme example language with the tiniest spec, you can always take Brainfuck. The entire spec probably fits in a few paragraphs, but it's not easy to master.
Walmart and 9 Food Giants Team Up on IBM Blockchain Plans
This is the typical corporate abuse enabling flaw in a lot of libertarian thinking.

Withdraw limiting regulations and replace them with market based compeititve mechanisms.

Except somehow the second part inevitably seems to get forgotten about...
I went through a visa application process for the UK over the past few months. The main gov.uk site is a very good website for finding information, well designed, works on mobile, etc. Coming from the US, that was quite refreshing -- there's no equivalent in the US as everything is scattered across 100 different agency websites in 50 states.

However the "business logic" of gov.uk is still sorely lacking. For the actual visa application process and payment, I was bounced around between 4-5 different third party websites handling different aspects of the process. I'm sure further integration with gov.uk is on the roadmap, and it will certainly be nice.

As a new resident of the U.K., though, I have to admit I've been pleasantly surprised and very happy with the gov.uk website so far.
Vertical vs. Horizontal: Which Assortment Is More Persuasive?
The main problem with specializing in this way is that it presumes that "frontend" and "backend" are the correct criteria to start specializing on, and that they're equally valuable. For many applications this is simply not the case; usually one is more valuable than the other, and if specialization is necessary it needs to start within one of those two categories instead of between them.

A secondary problem is that any time you have an interface and people who can't clearly understand what happens on both sides of it, you end up having integration problems. And meetings to discuss the problems. And proposals to solve the problems. And disagreement on who should solve the problems. And future arguments if the solutions are wrong. "Communicate with an appropriate formalism" is the probably the hardest part of software; why would you introduce that if you don't actually have to?
Show HN: An irc bot streams HN titles
irc://freenode.org/#hn
botihn, an irc bot logs all HN in this channel.
Bitcoin Cash Blockchain Length Passes Bitcoin
Jocuri Monster High clopotel.ro
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072866 has a longer explanation
Hey, author of the SMT attack here. There is probably a clever way to go after XorShift128+ as well, symbolic execution using an SMT solver is basically a brute-force solution.

I'll have to give this challenge a shot later.
I'm sure both sides will stop fighting long enough for that company to send some consultants in to establish an independent airfield and command and control then sell their services. Drones still need human support.
And if you could build an AI smart enough to do all that, then it might logically conclude that the one thing all the problems you describe have in common is humans.

I don't think there's any simple or easy solution to these problems. They're messy human problems with vested interests, and smart people are going to have to work hard, together, to implement even partial solutions.

Government and politics are unpleasant and can go horribly wrong. But I've come to distrust all simplistic answers that begin, "All you need to do is X", whether "X" is "privatize everything" or "invent benevolent AI" or "allow the state to wither away in favor of an enlightened proletariat." No, I think we need to work very hard, be smart, and try to find common ground with as many other people as we can. And if merely sort of works, we should count ourselves lucky.
Hanlon's Law
Nice post. It really surprises me that someone who writes assembly for fun doesn't know that dividing by constants can be done faster, nor that dividing/multiplying by powers of two can be done even faster.

On the topic of hand-optimizing or not: There always seem to be two camps. The first say: "Never bother with assembly. Let the compiler do optimizing. If anything, try to write code that the compiler can optimize.".

The second camp always states something like "It is not that hard to outperform the compiler.".

I guess the complicated pipeline models are mostly the reason for the complexity. I'm not sure how much compilers do to avoid pipeline stalls though. For example, how detailed the execution model that they use is. It shouldn't be too complicated, since most compilers (as far as I know) don't differentiate between different processors, while different processors have a different execution model.
The Note-Taking Habits of Highly Successful People
I am ashamed of the general "sky is falling" tone in this thread. I'm a privacy advocate. I know I'm not a fan of submitting gmy browser history (even domain-only) to another organization. Mozilla has always been the most privacy- and user-focused browser, and I think that history should be taken into consideration before the sky falls.

People are insulting the developers, saying Chinese owned, VPN-operating Opera would be better for privacy... there is a lot of nonsense here.

IMO this is not the most needed feature, and I would be happy for Firefox to keep in mind its reputation as a product focused on user privacy.
For me on desktop Firefox it only works with touch events emulation
Can but (in case of some banks) won't. As I have learned from a friend who was a victim of debit card skimming and theft - with TD bank failing to block obviously out-of-character fraudulent transactions and refusing to revert the fraudulent charges, and then charging fees for fraudulent overdraft to add insult to injury.
But that's true of _any_ new feature that gets added to Firefox. Anytime you change code, there's a chance you could be creating a new vulnerability that compromises users' privacy or security in some way.

If, as some commenters here [have suggested][1], this telemetry would help improve Firefox by significantly reducing the amount of time it takes Mozilla to fix bugs and performance issues in the browser, what makes you think that's not worth the risk when other features (such as the performance fixes themselves) are?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072157
Support for Bitcoin Cash continues to grow, currently over 42% [0] of the combined hashing power of the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash networks is dedicated to Bitcoin Cash mining.

Meanwhile the Bitcoin mempool (pending transactions) is approaching all-time highs [1] (over 90k KB of transactions -- which will take over 90 blocks to process if no additional transactions are sent, which could take several days to process at current hashrates [2].

[0] http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

[1] https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

[2] https://blockchain.info/ -- Blocks are being found approximately every 30 minutes, this slow pace will continue until the next Bitcoin difficulty adjustment occurs, which won't be for another 210 blocks or 1.5 days [3].

[3] https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

Edit: Additional information comparing the two blocks.
How to Lose 50% of Your Business Overnight from a Series of Coincidences
The people who write "article answers" like this on SO are the real MVP's of the web.