skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military.

The vast majority of US spending since 2001 has been wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with the defense of Europe. This article has a good example of the spending increases specifically earmarked for Iraq/Afgahnistan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/every...

That ignores things like the excessively high hours on F-18 airframes from a higher than anticipated rate of deployment, causing increased repair/replacement costs and lower airframe availability, even after: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-...

> If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him.

There are other, much cheaper solutions to this - note that the US and EU have made it politically untenable for Russia to resolve the invasion of Ukraine in their favor, with extremely minimal deployments of military forces (a few show of force exercises in eastern Europe with NATO members or partners).
'Work' can include things like travel and lunches. Both of which can be downtime but are classed as 'work'.

Overall its hard to believe considering he also has Space x and other investments and im suresomeone is streching the truth. But I dont doubt the guy lives and breaths his work.
As an adult you should be allowed to take the benefit of the doubt.
Never even heard of anyone using TDD for CSS. How does that work?
I hope for european authorities to force Intel and AMD to offer chips without ME and consorts and providing guaranteed complete documentation and control to the users. Food is regularly sampled and controlled. I think the same for electronics is necessary. EU, why do you sleep?

1. Is there a justification for it?
Yes, Intel and AMD have together a monopoly for fundamental parts of consumer and business computers. They do not leave the choice to avoid ME and equivalents. The products are fundamental and the functionality can be provenly malicious. That allows anti-trust measures.

1.1 But aren't OpenPOWER, RISC-V, ARM, ..., alternatives?
No, because the products either don't exist, are not suitable for the needs, or have similar issues with lack of documentation and guaranteed control for users. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I expect hardware level reverse engineering to check for backdoors.

2. Can authorities force them to change their offering?
Not directly, but they can do it indirectly and effectively by forbidding selling their products without change. Or by charging them huge fees for every CPU sold while not offering an alternative.

2.1 Can the authorities check the hardware? Yes, but it is time-consuming and needs experts. Since it could be done for the whole of Europe, the load can be shared. Food controls also need experts, are time-intensive and don't work perfectly. Still, it is working generally good.

3. Is this likely to happen?
The authority needs to be willing to face huge and important companies and be able to withstand political pressure. German authorities are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to digitalization and computers. Maybe EU's organisations wake up. They have shown to be willing to face huge corporations and speak clear and understandable words with them.
If you run the kernel, mass surveillance on the processes inside the kernel (whether in a container or not) is extremely easy, whether or not TLS is implemented in the kernel.

Honestly sometimes I wish we had a library of these sorts of attacks so that it's easier to believe that they're easy, but there is a vague security advantage in not having easy-to-use, well-tested implementations of these attacks available for free on the internets.
Other than the name of the option? and the fact that this rather clearly spelled out in the OracleJDK binary license text? http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/... and otherwise documented at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/products...
That lead to my firing at a previous job :/ I think people should be held accountable for ordering engineers to do questionably ethical things like this situation
Well, Harvey has been a once in a thousand year storm. Houston has literally never been flooded like this before.
You may have heard rumblings about a populist party poised to gain power in Germany’s election on Sept. 24 — or maybe you just heard that there’s an election coming up. The party vote might seem strange — candidates usually belong to parties already, the way they do in the U.S. — but it exists to make sure the Bundestag reflects the party preferences of the overall electorate. To achieve the right proportions, the total number of representatives in the Bundestag can vary with each federal election, but it is always at least 598. Unless a single party wins a simple majority — which is rare — multiple parties will need to join forces to form a governing coalition that, collectively makes up at least 50 percent of the Bundestag.
And they will stop people from making bitcoin transactions how, exactly?

It's a bit silly to come in and dismissively say "the state will regulate it anyway" when the whole point of the technology is that it technologically prevents central actors (like a state) from interfering.

It's a bit like saying "nah, the MPAA and RIAA will shut down filesharing." Nope. They shut down Napster (which was centralized), but BitTorrent works just fine thank you very much and the media industry has fundamentally changed as a result.
> There are a bunch of bad compromises in the ACA, but the comment I replied to was mystified that the US apparently isn't even trying things that have worked elsewhere, which is just wrong.

I'd say that they are right. The ACA is completely different from the German system. I mean, I could argue that the Republican healthcare plan is similar to the German healthcare system since it would have a public Government run system (Medicare and Medicaid) and subsidized private insurance (vouchers), but that's not a particularly compelling argument. When two systems are completely different, talking about a couple of ways they're slightly similar if you squint and don't look at the details doesn't seem particularly useful.
> I'd like to see more work like this.

Me too, but not so much with subjects that have just a couple of months experience with the language.

I'd prefer to identify things that still confuse programmers with, say, five years.

Things that confuse noobs contain a lot of noise. If we craft a coding convention based on that, we might end up with:

i = 1;
total = 0;
while (i <= 100) {
total = total + a[i - 1];
i = i + 1;
}

because the noobs were confused by zero-based arrays; increment operators like i++; and the jumpy, out-of-order evaluation of for(;;) syntax.
Worth adding to this that Wordpress have been working on an official OAuth1.0a server plugin for while alongside the development of the new REST API. It works well. I've built an iOS app on the back of it. (1.0a was chosen due to WP not wanting to enforce https.) https://en-gb.wordpress.org/plugins/rest-api-oauth1/

I've also seen discussion on an official OAuth2 server plugin, what with the rapid increase of https sites, thanks to the likes of LetsEncrypt.

There's a well supported OAuth2.0 server plugin here: https://en-gb.wordpress.org/plugins/oauth2-provider/

But you'd be wise to only run it via https.
It certainly did happen, there was a spate of kickstarter projects that turned out to be vapourware. The rules were changed after a while.
Wow, looking at all the comments here, I am amazed by all the negativity around post modern theories.

It's strange to me to see this on hacker news, especially since we as computer scientists, do understand much better than anyone else the complexity of the human mind.

Post-modernism is first and foremost a realization that modernism was a failure. In modern times, people thought that we could find some universal mechanism that describes nature, and that from there we could find a logical language (or structure) that could explain the way everything works.

Great. But then we realized that things were way more complex than they appeared. We found that combining a large number of simple rules quickly resulted in a mess that was nearly impossible to describe. Take for instance the double-rod pendulum or 3-body problem. Physicist admit they don't fully understand what glass is, let alone playdoh, etc.

Nature is not neat and tidy, and neither is the human brain or human societies. That's mostly what postmodernism is about.

I don't really see what the problem is with that...
I have yet to see a good technical implementation of microservices. It always seem to get messy, inefficient and hard to organize.

One word: CORBA

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
Without taking "sides" -- I don't have a horse in the "is postmodernism true?" race -- it bears pointing out that afaict Jordan Peterson doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to 20th-century philosophy. Most of his views on postmodernism, and philosophy in general, make absurd claims without actually referring to any philosophical literature. He doesn't even refer to much literature critical of postmodernism (and there is lots of this).

In fact, this pattern of not really knowing what he talks about could be stretched to cover basically everything but clinical psychology (which is what he works in). To quote the man himself[0], in a recent Deepak Chopra moment:

> Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

Most of his knowledge about postmodernism isn't from actually reading the texts he so dislikes; he just gets it[1] from a self-published/vanity-press book (Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism) that ... just isn't very good. From a review of the book, which could very well be applied to Peterson's videos:

> Second, although it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that.

A quick search for his name on /r/askphilosophy will turn up a ton of reasons (from people actually working in philosophy) why anyone is -- to put it charitably -- better served engaging with other critics of postmodernism.

His current popularity is largely due to the controversy around him bravely "sticking it to feminists" by daringly refusing to call trans people by their preferred pronouns. Another reason is his conspiracy-theorizing on "cultural Marxism",

> 'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society.[2]

both of which find favor with a section of the right today.

--

[0]: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6n6rhg/why_a...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...
I was a little bit disappointed to see that the plan for Polymer 3.0 is to leverage ES modules to handle all the asset loading. Maybe their hand has been forced here since browser vendors refused to implement http imports but if Polymer requires a fair bit of Javascript to do anything interesting then its advantage over something like React becomes a bit less clear-cut, IMO.
His point is that the government not only doesn't ban many forms of stupid decisions, but actively encourages ones that provide significant revenue, particularly in the gambling and consumer spending spheres.

"Tu quoque" is actually a pretty useful heuristic for analyzing whether a party's stated goals for a policy align with its actual ones.
Haaretz is pretty much the only remaining media outlet in Israel that continues to pursue actual journalism. To that end I support them endlessly.

However, they are also the only media outlet that has paywalls, and I'd be fine with that if it ended there - high quality investigative journalism has a price.

The problem is that they also have a shit ton of third-party malware networks embedded on their pages, and even if you pay for a digital subscription you still get tracked and bombarded with ads. Then to add further insult, they block ad-blockers.

The solution is two fold: the Hebrew EasyList [1] blocks the anti ad-block elements allowing you to continue to view Haaretz without ads and without blocking. Second, if you want to jump over the paywall, there's an addon for that [2].

[1] - https://github.com/easylist/EasyListHebrew

[2] - https://github.com/yuvadm/free-haaretz
How does a regular bank print money?
>artificially distort this decision towards complacency and mediocrity.

You seem to be assuming that Starting a Business is always better, more of an achievement, more awesome, than not starting one. I see no reason for this to be true. Maximizing revenue tends to have more to do with building market power than with achieving anything at all.

You're also deliberately shifting the goalposts here. You started out by saying that progressive taxes were bad because they penalize making more money. Now you're saying they're bad because they incentivize complacency and mediocrity, which are life-achievement qualities rather than economic quantities.

It looks like your underlying belief is: "people who make lots of money are heroes, and we need to encourage more people to be heroes, irrespective of what's good for the rest of society."

>Given a secure enough financial base off of which the logarithmic personal rewards factor is a non-issue, this is the primary driver for plenty of people that I personally know.

To be frank, it's their primary excuse for what they really wanted to do, which was to make as much money as possible. After all, how many are giving away their extra money to the most efficient administrator of human-welfare programs around, the state?
Why do you need "AI" to solve this problem?
Can you explain this position?

In particular, my impression is that a large reason of why microkernels failed in the '90s - see e.g. OSF/1 - was the overhead of message-passing. The two most popular kernels today that vaguely resemble microkernels, namely Darwin (Mach-based) and NT (with its subsystems), do no isolation between parts of their kernel and just have ordinary function calls. TLS exists in userspace and works extraordinarily well, but the desire to move parts into kernelspace is specifically to avoid the overhead of copying data between kernelspace and userspace and to allow using things like sendfile() that wouldn't be possible across address spaces.
If you account for rent in SF and healthcare, I am not sure it is so much less.
Is is an actual bug does the exploit rely on certain legal PDF parameters that cause quasi-infinite behavior when actually rendering it (i.e. the PDF equivalent of a ZIP bomb)?
I doubt food magically appears on your plate? You seem to have left out the 'Organizing food' part of the eating entry above which includes the time required to get the food.

You either have to source food from markets and cook it, have it cooked, eat at a restaurant or order out, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. All this takes time as does time to actually eat the food.

If you have a family multiply the time required. If you can do all the above in less than 3 hours it's worth sharing.
I do not think it can be done. I am mantaining a kernel for ARM a family of SBCs. Device trees are great compared to old platform files, however they are not enough. We have a lot of commits to fix other things that DT cannot access.
It suffered 50+ inches of rain (19 trillion gallons of water) in a short period of time. This is the most rainfall in US history. There are things you can do to mitigate flooding, but this was a very extreme event.
Yes indeed, running OAuth2 without https is madness!
> Angriness ensued...

This usually only happens when one begins to make personal insults, i.e. "only a poor programmer would think that!"..
AIUI, the situation until now has been that essentially, every Android device released has its own fork of Android. Which is absurd, and explains why the Android security update situation is such a mess. Glad Google are trying to fix this.
> it's just that many of the elements created use Polymer, and that is probably a good indicator of how popular the tooling is in the component ecosystem.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There are no WebComponents. There is no x-tags or whatever. There is only Polymer. For many reasons. Chief among them: WebComponents suck. Polymer at least gives nice-ish APIs on top of that.

Rob did say something like "Polymer is the jQuery of WebComponents". And it's true.

One could argue that you can write your stuff in pure DOM APIs. Yet hardly enyone ever did that, because there was jQuery. All the handlebars and mustaches and other things of this world were largely irrelevant because of jQuery.

Now, jQuery solved a very pressing problem: it gave an easy, simple, extensible API that made working with the DOM a joy. It would be very nice if jQuery's approach was adopted by w3c, but that is really too much to ask for.

In 11 years since jQuery's original release w3c managed — barely! — to standardize on querySelector/querySelectorAll (already a much more cumbersome combination of APIs than jQuery's $).

Enter WebComponents. 6 years in development. Quite a few years of saying that they are the future. Let's do a reality check, shall we?

The APIs are horrible. None of the original promises are fulfilled. As Polymer 3 approaches someone suddenly starts asking "erm, guys, what are the best ways of creating WebComponents without Polymer".

- It turns out even people who implement the spec in the browser don't have reference components.

- It turns out the API is so bad, you have to use pseudocode in your presentation to sell people the idea[1].

- It turns out WebComponents are so effing great and can really be used to reimplement stuff in the browser, ... that you can't even implement a checkbox without reimplementing the checkbox label [2]

- It turns out people don't even know how WCs should work. Quote from [1]: "If we can generally agree on how Custom Elements should behave..."

- It turns out that actually implementing WCs in anything but Polymer is a royal pain in basically everywhere because w3c's goal was never to create a sane API for anything.

etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, forget selling people the idea of WebComponents. For all intents and purposes they do not exist. Only Polymer exists. Masochists can go and check out the underlying DOM APIs, of course.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK1ODp0nDbM

[2] https://github.com/GoogleChrome/howto-components/issues/112
TLDR:

- The guy who got caught hacking Stratfor is about to get out of jail, and wrote this article

- He believes that there is a widespread and insidious government conspiracy against him that involves members of both the Obama and Trump administrations, as well as Peter Thiel and Palantir

- He is in the process of building a virtual network of superfriends, comprised mostly of people affiliated with Anonymous and the European Pirate Parties, that will expose wrongdoing by governments and corporations
That's good to know. I'm working on a service that processes PDFs, so I was concerned that someone could bring down my server by uploading one of these.

The pdf-reader gem throws a "stack level too deep" exception after about a second. There's also a ton of other issues on pdf-reader: https://github.com/yob/pdf-reader/issues

Good reminder that any kind of file processing needs to be heavily sandboxed.
The joke isn't by Germans saying they eat cheap food but by other immigrants saying it about Berliners/Germans (i lived for a much longer in Austria and never heard this said about Austrians).

I think the locals wouldn't joke about themselves that way cause to them the way they are is just "normal".

And surely you've heard Berliners say that Berlin's local food tradition is the Döner (i.e. there is no "local food")? I guarantee you no Bavarian or Austrian would say that about their own food tradition.

(And BTW I have no ill will towards Berlin or Berliners, I think it's one of the best places in the world to live in)
Well market supposed to be self-regulating automata aiming at discovery of optimal price at maximum benefit to the consumers. And it is clearly not working like that - both price and quality benefits are nowhere to be fund.

Isn't over 30 years of market leveling enough in case of tomatoes? If the choice is between growing tasteless tomatoes or importing similarly tasteless tomatoes then I am under impression that market isn't working well in that case. At least not for a consumer.

If you are telling me that growing tasty tomatoes at large scale is absolutely impossible under capitalism then I will cry "Komuno wróć" :)

The article that started this discussion is about super modern technology used in farming. It reminds me of old joke about modern farming in USSR - they plow with tractors, they sow with airplanes and they watching bread on TV.
Exactly. Being a blockchain engineer may allow you to judge their code. But the business behind it is a different matter altogether.
I remember how at one of my previous employers tools team got frustrated with JIRA and created their own knockoff in something like a half year.

Was lightning fast, not crumbling under the amount of issues and projects we had, and interface much cleaner. I understand there's a ton of complexity in JIRA that we didn't use and they didn't have to implement, but anyway there's no excuse how unwieldy JIRA core functonality is.
Maybe genius, though definitely eccentric and appealing to a small minority. For me, WP became bearable, even elegant in some sense, when they introduced fully transparent tiles so that I could put some nice picture underneath and not look at those single-colored squares everywhere.
> The point here is that people support policies that favor the top 1% because they foolishly believe that they're part of that top 1%.

Or because they do not believe in taking from others in order to themselves have something.

You literally ascribe people's actions and beliefs to foolishness, when a little introspection will show that others are not necessarily being foolish.
I always tell people: Microservices sacrifice everything at the alter of scalability. Everything but scalability gets harder, not easier. You point out some good examples of places where this is true.

You should not be doing microservices unless you need that scalability. If you don't, regular SOA or even modular monoliths work fine. Microservices live in the place where those break down in scaling. That's a very extreme place, and so microservices are an extreme response.

As an example, let's take scaling services over a hybrid cloud. You have your own metal for the baseline request volume, with the capability to provision more capacity from a public cloud. A modular monolith is obviously out of the picture at this point. You would have two separate monolith instances, and would have to consider how and when to pass work between them... Possible, but at that point you're basically inventing a service architecture within a monolith, so why not just move to SOA? If you already have a SOA system, you still have work: Which services to deploy to the cloud, when to deploy them, how to recover and load balance to them, etc. Specific answers to these decisions are what led to what we consider modern microservices: What to deploy is the smallest unit possible, so that you can keep scaling as fine-grained as possible. Every request is routed through a discovery and load-balancer to any and all available instances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_fair_representation