skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whenever I see stuff like this I think; why RNNs, why not just multivariate polynomials? Every property you want from an RNN you can get from polynomials, except polynomials are significantly more exhaustively studied. Want certain invariants to be guaranteed? You got it! Just look up any undergraduate textbook on algebraic geometry. I'm glad that Yann Lecun went against the established paradigm of creating image filters manually. But why stop there. Let's go beyond the constraint of using only the mathematics commonly taught in engineering schools. Let's take some inspiration from other departments. Cross pollination is the key to revolutionary jumps in innovation.
I got the same page, but then I tried putting in a fake name and got:

> Thank You

> Based on the information provided, we believe that your personal information was not impacted by this incident.

So if you just get the enrollment date, I think that means you’re affected.
I thought that the prevalence of Pascal compilers was partly due to p-code as a compiler implementation technique, not that they were generating it.

As I mentioned above, this raises questions about why C came to dominate Pascal. They both had a comparable early foothold on PCs.
Bigbank is the only one in your scenario that actually has monetary loss since they lent out the money and most likely will never get it back. In identity theft, the company has the financial loss. FBI won't investigate unless its over 250k in losses as well.
One "non-programmer" perspective here: Python is the new Perl, except it's fast to read AND write. In Python it's fast to do ...everything. I'm an electrical engineer by trade, and Python gets used a lot.

* If I have a giant CSV with data in it:

import csv
with open(filename) as csvfile:
csvreader = csv.DictReader(csvfile)
data = list(csvreader)

Bam, an array of dictionaries with the data in them, indexed by column name. With listcomps, whatever I need to do will only take a few more lines. And it's this easy for almost any data format. There will be a widely used library for me to `pip install`.

* I needed to plot some I/Q data and superimpose some other data as a heat map over it. Complex numbers are built in. Matplotlib, and bam, graph created. It looks as nice as the graphs my coworkers make using Matlab, and I coded it up just as fast, if not faster.

* I wanted to play around with ordering a pizza online automatically. Import requests, and off I go.

* The code is so easy to read, I've had coworkers update things I wrote when they have never programmed in Python before.

I don't have to do any compile steps. I don't have to use a special IDE. I don't have to think in objects and state-passing and all that BS (but I can if I want to!). I don't have to search for some arcane library. I don't have to know a magic build sequence. I don't have to edit config files. I just make cool shit really fast. It runs slower, but for most things I use it for, I don't care if it takes 10 us or 10 seconds. I just want to make it work.
But they give ZERO source for their claims.

It seems like you're looking for a particular point of view here.
I went there and used the site and guess what? It doesn't work. It just said 'Thank You!' and gave me an enrollment date. It gave me no info as to if I was one of the people affected.
Do you have any source for your claims?
That's what I came here for too. They have a site (go to Equifax for a notification banner) but providing the information they want just tells me to check back later. From the text I would assume I wasn't impacted, despite the fact that it seems almost everyone who used the site would have been.

Edit: Seems that if you have a date you're impacted. https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6yq36a/equ...
Biometrics are more useful as an enhancing measure to verify identity but not for gaining access. Once compromised, it's forever.

One can even fake DNA if you have enough time, money and expertise...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c57WKxeELY
"Customers"? I'm not an Equifax customer - that is, I've never given them my name or any information, I've certainly never paid them for a service. Yet it wouldn't surprise me to learn I'm on their list. Why call me a "customer", I'm the product you sell to banks.
This site seems shady as hell. As well is the trustedidpartner.com which has no homepage that it refers you to. Seems like a phishing scam.
YMMV as they say
there is! https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ i use it every year along with being a regular credit karma user.
This statistical analysis[1] of review websites suggests that the scoring and review systems everywhere but Metacritic are somewhat flawed because they do not follow a normal distribution. Of course it starts with the ground truth that movie quality follows a normal distribution, but that’s not a terribly difficult supposition in the first place.

[1]: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/whose-reviews-should-you-tru...
Calling a phone number is easier than signing up by web

https://www.transunion.com/fraud-victim-resource/important-
contacts
I did the same - they are offering free identity theft protection to all US Consumers starting on some kind of rolling enrollment date beginning 2017-09-14.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_and_Necessity seems to be an overview of the "fruits of 100 years of analytical philosophy" mentioned as inspirational for the naming chapter.
> The company has found no evidence of unauthorized activity on Equifax’s core consumer or commercial credit reporting databases.

Oh good, sounds like Equifax's valuable data is safe, it's just that of their unwilling 'customers' that leaked.
If the original developers wrote one, it might help.
Putting aside the whole "punishing the victim" argument, the problem is that it's excruciatingly hard to draw a line between "being careless" and "you did everything right but it still wasn't enough", and thus it's really hard to punish someone for cybersecurity mistakes. I work in cybersec consulting, and it's certainly true that a large number of companies are simply not investing enough money/time/effort into cybersecurity protections, and are thus doing a disservice to their customers.

However, there are also plenty of companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars, with massive cybersec departments devoted to protecting from breaches like this, doing pretty much everything they possibly can right, and they will still be hacked. Cybersecurity is incredibly difficult, incredibly expensive, and takes a really long time. And even if you get 99.999999% of your company completely impervious to attackers, it only takes that 0.0000001% of exposure to sink your ship. Cybersec is also constantly evolving, so it's nearly impossible to keep up with the latest attack vectors, etc.

Take the Target breach, for example: Target has a massive effort focused on cybersecurity. They actually have a cybersec research lab that some law enforcement agencies go to for help with cybersec issues. But the attack that hit them took them totally by surprise simply because it was a type of attack that hadn't really been considered, and thus was very very low on the radar (if there at all) when it came to protecting against it.

Now, companies in the US actually are held accountable (to an extent). Data breaches that result in HIPAA violations, for example, usually result in massive fines for companies. Violations of PCI-DSS will land you in hot water with the major payment card companies. Some states also have cybersec regulations that result in fines if you're found to be in violation of them during an audit. The problem, again, is that cybersec is constantly evolving and these regulations are years behind. The HIPAA cybersec requirements are actually pretty laughable, partly because of all the reasons listed above.
Try putting in multiple internet connections each with its own IPv6 space! I have five at work but cannot really afford PI addressing (say £3000 per year) and certainly would not be able to get the four FTTC (VDSL) ISPs to route it. I also have a 100Mb leased line with yet another /56 prefix. That's five of the bloody things. Each PC/server/printer/whatever now has at least five globally unique IPv6 addresses. Now most of those devices also want to do various versions of each prefix - an algorithmic ally derived on based on MAC address, a randomish one (for privacy) etc. Add in link local and perhaps a few DHCPv6 addresses for good measure and it rapidly gets quite complicated.

Now how does that lot get to and from the internet? For a PC to get to a web server it has to use the correct "local" address to get to the other end via the relevant ISP connection. However the PC can't know which internet connections are working without some form of routing protocol telling it what is going on upstream. So all my PCs, servers, printers and even IP cameras need to be routers rather than simply having a default gateway!

As you can probably guess, that is not what I will actually do when I flick the IPv6 switch for real at work (home has been dual stack with one link for several years now).

My current plan is ULA (a bit like IPv4 RFC 1918 - 192.168., 172.16. 10.) with Network Prefix Translation. That way my DNS servers, AD DCs (I think of those merely as KDCs but apparently they do other jobs) and other handy things wont renumber themselves every time a link goes down. The real joy of all this is I'll also get to manage two lots of firewall rules per VLAN. Can you imagine how busy a DNS server would get in the event of a flapping internet connection if it had to do dynamic DNS updates?

Don't get hung up over NAT, the world of fully tooled up IPv6 is going to be far more "interesting", especially when you are not a big institution with a huge budget but want a bit more connectivity than one ISP connection provides.
They do briefly mention "the relative cost of type I versus type II errors". Both errors (Type I - false positive, Type II - false negative) have some cost associated.

Money saved by using a small sample size is wasted trying to replicate a false positive result and by groups around the world that rely on that false result.

Requiring larger sample sizes would mean fewer experiments are carried out but we will have more confidence in the positive results produced. The outcome is fewer experiments wasted on following up on false positives. None of this requires a change in funding.
The whole concept of these credit agencies infuriates me. I didn't sign up for it. You have a dossier on me that I have no part of. If you F it up, you'd better bend over backwards to make sure it doesn't affect me.
The NYT just seems so one sided since Trump (and probably before). I mean there are two sides to DACA and both have merit. There was an article the other day that tried to explain away whites being killed by cops as suicide by cop. That's not good reporting, that borders on propaganda. I mean I know opinion pages are garbage, but damn.

EDIT: Suicide by cop article was Wapo, not NYT. I need to stop reading Wapo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/1...

I don't even mind that much that they pick a side if they do it at the end, I just want them to present both arguments, and their merits so I can decide.

When the best out there does what the NYT is doing now, we're in trouble.
Bat bomb
I am not familiar with Pittsburgh, but I was born in Minneapolis area. Great government, great people, but damn the winters are COLD.
About half of the country.
Well you could become a fungitarian I guess? You'd really struggle to get enough calories purely from fungus though, I guess you could get a decent amount from algae if you build some nice large algae reactors to feed you.
Bindgen is excellent with C APIs but what I've found really impressive is that it can handle C++ pretty well too. Most of my issues with using C++ code via bindgen are due to deviations in calling conventions that are hard to solve at that level.
A website registed a month ago with a simple DV certificate. Either the gentlemen at equifax are grossly incompetent, either this is a phishing website.
Related Twitter thread https://twitter.com/emilymaxima/status/905445894866124801
Micropayments are not that feasible when the fees per transaction are in the multiple dollars, surely?
Is there a way to check if your information was exposed?
Surely you choose Minecraft because it was unusual, unusual in delivering so much wealth to one person. The creator of Mario isn't as rich is he? You could point to a lot of people who have contributed amazing things to society and who aren't even millionaires, but you did exactly the opposite. You found a game dev who was very unusually a Billionaire, then you talked down the product that made him so rich as if he wasn't even special.

You also said the House of Lords is "largely inactive" which doesn't really seem connected with reality either.

Do you mind sharing why you're so keen to minimise this?
Maybe they envisioned iPhone 8 to be a bigger game changer than the iPhone7 was.
Show HN: Productivity / Goal Management Tool
Not mine, just think it looks neat.
Unfortunately it's 4X, up to $1350 [1]

Which causes two problems.

1. For cheap flights, say a $200 flight, $800 compensation for possibly having to rebook for the next day is not really sufficient, particularly for business travelers, or people with time-sensitive itineraries

2. For people with expensive flights (say $1000) $1350 doesn't really cut the mustard at all.

Irrespective of the above, the airline is certainly allowed to offer more....and adding airline vouchers cost them almost nothing. They can and should do better.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12...
Fear not. You can check to see if you were affected by visiting their site and giving them more personal data:

https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com

/s

Maybe it doesn't matter much, since they've likely already got it. But, it feels a bit too soon.

An interesting side-note: That domain was registered about two weeks ago on 8/22/2017. Whois reveals not a single pointer to Equifax (e.g. equifax.com email address, etc.). It shows only DNStination Inc., and so is effectively private.

When you click the "Enroll" link, then "Begin Enrollment" button, it takes you to https://trustedidpremier.com, which was registered on 8/28/2017, using a different registrar (Amazon, with Whois Privacy). There's not even a reference to Equifax in the domain itself.

As of today, someone registered equifaxsecurity2018.com with a private (this time, Domains By Proxy) registration. Given the timing and the fact that this is a different registrar from the original, it's a good bet that's not Equifax. Or is it? Who knows?

And SSL-wise, these don't even appear to be using extended validation certs (FWIW). At least one is an Amazon cert, free to anyone who hosts on AWS.

They are virtually training people to be phished and creating another potential disaster with all of these additional domains, private registrations, etc.
credit karma
The primary reason behind WA is not for performance. If performance is all they cared about then browser developers can continue to work on optimizing the speed of the JS vms.
The advantage of a low level pixel based api is for people who don't like HTML/CSS. It's to make web application development truly about application development by allowing developers access to a whole universe of layout engines rather then just one.
Oh good, sounds like Equifax's valuable data is safe, it's just that of their unwilling 'customers' that leaked.

Don't worry, for $9.99 a month they'll help you clean the mess they made. I am being sarcastic, but I wouldn't be surprised at their audacity.
Pretty twisted world where provable financial loss is the only or main measure.
Added support for OpenGraph extraction https://www.page.rest/#open-graph
I'm of the opinion that there are no good ticketing systems. I've seen a fair few of them (but haven't looked in the last year or two) and I realised that the problem is this: the amount of information you need to store to make a ticketing system really useful is more than people are comfortable putting in. Lightweight ticketing systems are great for small things, but suck for serious work. Heavyweight ticketing systems are a grind to use. Assigning metadata is tedious, remembering workflows is tedious, but if you want more power, you have to do those tasks, regardless of the particular software in use.
Also the early reliance on virtualbox was a performance issue for some build environments even once they were up. I have at least one C++ project that (for windows) takes 8x as long to build on vbox vs. a real machine.
In the case of Equifax customer data was given to them by creditors. Customers had no say.
How to Build an IoT Chip
I got:

404 Not found

Missing parameters: input
You comply if you think the request is reasonable and lawful, otherwise you don't.

Maybe you get your nose broken and United allegedly pays you $140 million in damages. Maybe the incident causes all warrantless police offices to be banned from hospital ER rooms.

Or maybe the law doesn't stand on your side and you wind up in jail and fined. Who knows.
IOTA is trash for this and other reasons. You should short it. Issues:

1. Double spends are devastating and easy, since they permanently split the tangle.

2. With no transaction limit, syncing from the beginning of time will take forever.

3. With no transaction limit, keeping up with network traffic will be impossible. (Especially on IoT devices.

4a. Nobody is going to use power and die space on IoT devices for the PoW chip.

4b. Or, alternately, if, as they claim, the PoW chip will take very little die space and very little power, the network will be destroyed outright by non-IoT PoW chips spamming the network.

5. There is currently a coordinator which confirms transactions. It is not P2P. If they remove the coordinator, I could write code that destroys the network by issuing TiB of transactions per day, making it impossible to sync/keep up.

6. Mesh networks of the type that they envisage deploying IOTA on are not widely deployed, and it's not clear that they will ever be widely deployed.

7. Tip selection does not converge.
Just in case anyone else runs into this and doesn't know what's going on: we had a problem with Yarn 1.0, because it doesn't recognise repositories that don't end in a trailing slash -- for example, "@folio:registry=https://repository.folio.org/repository/npm-folio" is no good any more, but "@folio:registry=https://repository.folio.org/repository/npm-folio/" is. See https://github.com/folio-org/stripes-demo-platform/commit/f8...

Meanwhile ... I do regret that this doesn't introduce alternative dependencies, like Debian packages have, where your package foo can have dependency on "either bar or baz". Oh well.
Ansible DevOps program gets upgraded
DST System in Kansas City hires a lot of them
"You could be at GRAVE RISK because we accidentally leaked your personal information. Please give us all of your personal information so that we can tell you if you were affected."

It's almost funny, in a way. What, so I can become affected if I'm not already?
You certainly can quantify the monetary losses to Alice too. When her credit rating is shit and she buys a car or home, the banks are expert at placing those rates and can tell you exactly how much more she pays. What is more difficult is calculating the loss of what she doesn't even do due to bad credit, like she might not be able to rent the same apartment, she might not even try to buy a car.

She may not have to pay that bank loan back but that doesn't clear her credit up immediately.
Not on the blockchain. This is what Lightning Network and other Layer 2 technologies seek to enable: nearly-free micropayments.
The IOTA devs are deluded. Here's there justification:

"Creating a new cryptographic hash function is no trivial undertaking, even when it is being built on preexisting world class standards. “Don’t roll your own crypto” is a compulsory uttered mantra that serves as a good guiding principle for 99.9% of projects, but there are exceptions to the rule. When spearheading technology for a new paradigm this statement is no longer axiomatic. Progress must march on."
The magnitude of the emissions. We are putting tens of billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere per year. Even assuming the filtering process is very efficient (net-carbon negative) where do we store that in the blimp? How many blimps would we need?

As a thought experiment - look at the average car - a Toyota Camry for example. That car emits 206 grams per kilometer. Over the course of the car's lifetime (about 200 thousand kilometers or so) that's 41 thousand kilograms of CO2. For one family car.
I think you misunderstood me when I said "name-brand". I don't mean some 30 dollar microscope with $20 glass lapped with 2 passes of alumina 35 micron by a 12 year old in a Chinese sweatshop. Those brands I mentioned were (and apparently still are) more than good enough to get you into industry primer publications. This[1] is literally a random paper I picked off of Nature Medicine. I intentionally chose the first DOI from Nature Medicine I saw to get it as 'random' as possible. (Nikkor is the trademark Nikon used to use to indicate their high-end domestically manufactured equipment.)

Hmm, Nikon, check. Agilent, check. Zeiss, check. Hell, everything in that paper, from the Sigma-Aldrich sourced chemicals to the BioGen PCR sequencer is 100% bog standard. Go pick up this months copy of any journal of medicine (hard medicine, not like, psychiatry -- JAMA, NE Journal of Medicine, Cell, whatever) and see what hit-rate you have with those 5 brands. "Research quality science equipment" is bog standard.

In fact, I was curious to see what equipment the CRISPR-Cas9 guys were using, because I mean cleaving nt's is about as low-level as anyone with an MD/PhD is going to get. (It also meets your "research-grade" criteria, cause, you know, its CRISPR-CAS9.)[2] Same brands, more sensitive equipment, still pretty bog standard. Again, semi-conductor equipment from the mid 2000s still has it beat for requirements re: sterile conditions for SiO seed -> ingot growth, re: resolution by an order of magnitude (at least) for making chip masks, re: chemical purity when CVD'ing your poly/metals, and for resolution re: SEM/FIB'ing for inspecting your wafers.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/IC56Nxj.png
[2] https://i.imgur.com/EAQo77W.png
Tab Atkins Jr. makes case that Google employees can manipulate search results
It kinda does, because if your unemployable, your more likely to commit crime and go to jail again
Static analysis is very useful to identify unreachable code given that it can see all the code depending on it.

It doesn't help with potentially reachable but unused cpdepaths, which in my experience make up for the most of 'dead' code.

Think of the functionality in an application that nobody uses or of obsolete API version when all the clients use a more recent version.
I commented on another thread with this link, but I will leave it here as well. This recently appeared on HN and suggests that Metacritic is going to give you the most accurate reviews if you assume that movie quality follows a normal distribution: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/whose-reviews-should-you-tru...
i only know one tesla engineer... lots of stuff that looks like it works, but is a completely broken hack when viewed under a microscope.

you're all idiots.