skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They(Ford) just needed people to believe wholeheartedly that they(Ford) were using one.

Ford was using the car. The people were seeing it. The second "they" in that sentence is referring to Ford, not the people.
In ASCII instead of combining marks what you have to do is write three characters:

* The unaccented letter

* The backspace character

* The accent character

If this makes no sense to you, try to imagine a literal, physical typewriter. Windows line terminators also work with a similar principle.
So if you order one death, it's a crime — but if you issue a blanket order for thousands of deaths, that deserves the protection of society? Surely the problem with plotting someone's death is not that it's thinking too small.
This is very bad for Kaspersky. Put aside how much revenue the entire GSA market represents for a security company (it'll be a double-digit percentage for a typical company). The bigger problem is that in the wake of this, every systemically important financial firm will also eject Kaspersky. In addition to being another significant chunk of revenue, major financial firms set the buying direction for IT security for the whole industry.

If you're wondering what the backstory is here, well, join the club. Dave Aitel sums it up: US Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio claim the US IC has presented them some kind of smoking gun evidence that some kind of line was crossed. They're not planning to share more information. Anybody who tells you they know more about what's going on is probably just spreading gossip.
I'm professionally involved with this, so at this point I'm obligated to say that the following is my personal opinion and in no way representative of my employer.

Banks use a lot of information to correlate and verify customer identity. The process is called KYC, Know Your Customer [0]. The problem is that this process relies on exactly the information present in a database like Equifax's. If they did perform verification calls, they would be using the same information to verify your identity over the phone, meaning that anyone with that same information could still impersonate you.

The problem, as often pointed out, is that much of this information is much more akin to a username than a password, but is often used as the latter. I mean, someone with my drivers license has my name, address and date of birth, which is often enough to verify with most systems that don't keep SSNs.

From a technical perspective, modern cryptography would seem to give us some opportunity here. The downside here is that its usage becomes absolute -- you either have the key or you don't, regardless of the reality of your identity. The reality is that identity is a very hard problem, with many confounding issues.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
The Risks of Bias and Errors in Artificial Intelligence
On a teletype, ALL characters are combining marks because you can backspace (another ASCII character derived directly from teletype codes) and type another character overtop it.
I felt the same way. I was expecting an article about Python, not a loading indicator on my broadband connection.
Would you consider it Orwellian if said company shut off access to your email, de-monetized your YouTube Videos and for all intents and purposes killed the account with all of the info you described above? Because Google has begun doing just that to those who hold a differing opinion from Google HQ. Jordan Peterson is a fairly good example of such an instance http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/01/free-speech-advocate-jo...
Guido used to be hostile to __slots__, but apparently he's lightened up.

If you're not using "setattr" to dynamically add fields to your object, CPython's underlying machinery is overkill. Everything is a dict, and all accesses take a lookup. With __slots__, a Python object is more like a struct in other languages.

Slotted objects should be the default. You should have to inherit from "DynamicObject" or something like it to enable setattr on an object. Actually, dynamic objects stopped being that important once Python let you inherit from "dict". Then, if you wanted "foo[ix]", it was easy to do it.

There are some packages, such as BeautifulSoup, which use dynamic attributes heavily. BeautifulSoup uses it to map HTML tags to attributes.
This is more trouble than it's worth, because when an HTML tag name clashes with a Python builtin name, workarounds are necessary.
Leading up to monads, monoids are covered in this excellent presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhuHCtR3xq8
do pedestrians and other drivers really make "eye contact" with drivers to gauge their intention?

They do, and it's even advised by some. But I'm here to tell you that the eyes lie. I've had people look me directly in the eye and still pull out in front of me.

Look at the wheels. The wheels will always tell you what the vehicle is going to do.
You can absolutely get banned from right-wing forums for being even slightly liberal (aka "communist").

You only have to look at The_Donald to see this in action everyday.
Proof, Computation and Truth
But this leak presumably leaked all of that information as well.

The problem is using not-secret information as an authenticator.
There was a cut-and-paste error, where a quote from a different post was included rather than the quote I actually was reacting to.

It has been corrected.
Does the data set go all the way to the 50s for that profession?
macOS offers WKWebView [1], which essentially uses internal webkit ( safari ) for running the application.

And since all libraries are already on your OS, the build is really small, as well as the memory footprint.

1: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview
Right, that's a great point. If the set of features that aren't supported in the jsDoc equivalent are the same set of features that end up requiring runtime transforms, then I can picture this to be an excellent way to use TypeScript the same way I do with Flow (which also supports a comment-mode syntax, but it doesn't have as compelling a use case in Flow since the standard syntax doesn't require any transformations to begin with).
This is a good hackers and painters juxtaposition: in STEM, it doesn't have to be novel as long as it is better. In art it doesn't have to be better as long as it's novel :-)
Could they make the argument that they're checking for malicious software/viruses/other bad stuff that could be a threat to Americans?
This leaves out the possibility that breaking down problems as abstract mathematical structures helps you avoid difficult problems.
I'm glad at least one person got it.
> I thought about this as well, but I'm not convinced that hiding the Server header or anything like unto it is really that beneficial.

We as users don't believe that's your choice to make.

> And if it becomes common to hide or remove the Server header for Caddy instances, then guess what becomes its new signature?

This only applies if Caddy is the only server that does this, which is not the case.
I've learned a lot from reading your underscore.js source code.

For me, I started by reading and understanding the raw commented source code from the first release (without the initialization wrapper and initially confusing module setup): http://cdn.rawgit.com/jashkenas/underscore/f4299d7427abc59bc...

Then I had an easier time following the annotated version after understanding how the other functions were built on top of each other in the simpler syntax.
You have the name of a person who was mugged a couple blocks away and had their physical credit cards stolen. Good luck filing that charge.
For beginners annotated code of highly optimized library might become confusing. Try reading Mary Rose Cook's annotated code of 2 JS games and a Git clone
http://annotated-code.maryrosecook.com/
Google Brain AMA
Yeah, that's the draft of the second thing, which is fun to read as repeated edits get more and more deranged while I slowly realize that each edit is making the case against publishing it in the first place. There's a link at the top of that to the Cliff's notes version of assorted quotes, will convince exactly 0 people and re-affirm the biases of 100% of readers, basically as it should, since it's not a good argument.
What? Why would I ever want you to bleed or have a runny nose?

Just because I'm amused by a particular language difference doesn't mean I wouldn't give you whichever beverage you prefer if I knew what that was.

The reason it's silly though is because a Coke is materially different from a Pepsi or Sprite or Dr. Pepper. If someone said they were going to bring me a Coke and I got a Pepsi, I would be confused and maybe a little disappointed. I can't tell the difference between kleenex and off-brand, but I definitely can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. It's not a huge deal, but it would be a misunderstanding that seems avoidable with more specific language, so it's amusing to me.

It's cool if that's not how it's interpreted in your parts. I'm not knocking you for using whichever terms you want. I'm just explaining why I'm not going to adopt that terminology.

I prefer to call shopping carts "buggys", but I get why others would be confused or think that's a silly term if I said that around them. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it or feel bad about it, but I understand if it's not really understood outside my region and seems like a silly word.
I see __slots__ come up quite often (I think more often than it should). It's great to be aware of, but shouldn't be used unless necessary. Like any optimization, it can make code maintenance more difficult. Obviously, you have to update slots if you add more attributes to the class, but you have to be aware of slots when dealing with class inheritance.
https://democracy.io

Email your congressperson and complain. This works. It takes time and it takes a critical mass of complaints. Tweet your Congresspeople too.
That's what "communists" (for lack of a better word, from AFA syndicalists to traditional Leninist-Marxists to Maoists to whathaveyounotists) don't seem to understand: while they're doing their best to get "nazis" banned from the 'net by all sort of tricks, they're building the framework for their own eventual ban. The divisiveness of their own doctrine more or less ensures that one day they'll all end up on the "oppressor" side and as such can be banned, just like white male homosexuals are now getting banned from some LGBT[a-z0-9] groups because they are supposedly "part of the problem".
"...only one laughing..."

You are illustrating the reason that mathematicians generally disparage the concept of an "infinitesimal", when it's used as proof rather than conceptual aid. (Yes, I know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis)

Not only do you get wrong conclusions, you get tedious, hard-to-adjudicate arguments.
https://www.watersafe.org.uk/news/latest_news/get_girls_plum...
I mean, not really unless they open it up and run antivirus software on it.
My goal is to make sure no one cares about what I (or another) has to say.
Contraband can be both physical and digital. If the government can conduct searches for physical contraband then searches for digital contraband in certain circumstances like border crossings seems reasonable.
It is, and denotes opening and closing quotes.
They did do exactly that for couple of months. I guess it didn't work out so well.
The article meanders a lot without making coherent points, making a lot of false assumptions.

It's one of those articles that's written by a journalist for journalists in an attempt to get some sort of participation trophy, without regard for the soundness of underlying arguments or readability.

Also, maybe stop blaming economists in every paragraph, when you can't even get the basics right yourself:

"What are the factors that drive economic growth? If we pull out and dust off our econ textbooks, we’ll read that growth is a function of higher investments, spending, trade, productivity, and so on."

Well, Dan, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model

All your mumbo-jumbo about optimism and other obscure factors that you invented while writing this JFJ piece can be summed up by the A parameter in the model.

The current unemployment rate in Japan is 2.8 percent. Japanese millennials get to enjoy a fairly tight labor market, which means they ought to have their pick of company to work for.

Low unemployment rate does not automatically mean better bargaining power for labor.

I'd consider asking for a refund on those economics classes you took.
Plug the phone in with a cable, and drag them into te Tunes folder on the device. There doesn't seem to be any way to delete them now though!
IMHO, naming things sometimes only makes sense in a specific, wider context. Thus, using a domain-specific jargon to name a simple thing like an associative operation with an identity does not make much sense outside of the domain (in this case, abstract algebra).

The extreme example of the same nature is the notion of "magma" that finds some use in algebra. Would you use this word to describe a function with two arguments (that have the same type)? There's nothing to be gained by doing this outside algebra.
> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass?

It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though.

> Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.

I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time.

edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
Only a bit. I really like ML languages. The issue is that the ecosystem is still in its infancy.
> The absence of proof results in what is known as faith.

It's not. The Christian word "faith" (in Greek, pistis (1)) is better translated as "trust", "conviction", or "faithfulness". "Faith" and "belief" are also translations, but the English meanings of those words have been watered down over the years, hence a lot of this confusion.

Anyway, you don't need proof to trust something, to have conviction that it's true. And having incontrovertible proof doesn't mean you don't trust something anymore.

(1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
I used to think about this a lot when growing up and had come to a philosophical view that I find so obvious and simple at this point, that I'm surprised I hadn't come across (exactly) the same view yet. Of course, this view could be wrong but I just can't imagine an alternative that would make sense.

Basically (don't want to spend much time on this so it's not the best way summarize it):

- Consciousness is defined as my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts.

- In a way, consciousness (or experience) is the only thing that exists.

- The idea that the physical world is everything is ridiculously wrong. Physics is just a way to summarize patterns observed through our consciousness. The physical world is just a mental model.

- Physical state of the brain clearly affects consciousness but there could very well be an opposite casual link - consciousness affecting the brain by "pushing atoms" or making supposedly random quantum phenomena not-so-random. Why? Because I wouldn't be typing this otherwise - my brain would never realize it affects some consciousness in "parallel universe" (metaphorically speaking).

- Other people (or computers) don't have consciousness as defined above. But we could define a separate term, say "consciousness2", to describe some physical processes typical for brains. If the "consciousness pushing atoms in brain" hypothesis is correct, we could say that all brains with this kind of fishy activity are "conscious2".
> If there's one thing software engineers love, it's talking about crazy situations where nobody considered this weird edge case and how they had to scramble to fix it (I know I do).

Stay awhile and listen while I discuss IE8 in quirks mode with a domain specific, terrible WYSIWYG editor from over a decade ago...

> It would be really nice if many newer languages didn't act like they existed in a vacuum and no prior art existed.

I don't limit that to newer languages only, and balancing the outside world with your users' needs is an invaluable skill.

NPM should have known better, and it bit them hard for not doing so. But they learned very, very quickly, because if they didn't Node would have fallen overnight.

I do like to make a point to not crucify people and organizations for things that have since been fixed. Yeah they were forced to, yeah it caused a lot of problems, but at the end of the day no one's using Node for pacemaker firmware or missile guidance systems. (And if you have counter examples, please don't post them for the sake of my sanity. Petition the people responsible instead.)
So you don't even disagree with me. I didn't mean science is contradictory to believing the bible at all, that's why I singled out biblical literalism (i.e. believing the bible to be literally word for word true) as being a straw man.

> Why didn't Genesis describe the creation process more specifically?

Because it was written down by people who hadn't yet (or were only just) developing place value. They clearly wouldn't understand an even slightly accurate explanation.
In a world without the Internet, sure. But in the one we live in, it seems trivial to "sneak" digital contraband into the United States.
There are scenarios where your app servers might be varied as well -- I've leveraged reverse proxies in front of a PHP application that had parts in .NET and parts in Go, for instance.

Technologies/competencies change as projects evolve, and being able to effortlessly reorganized and reroute is so profoundly powerful.
Yes. Obviously it doesn't seem like so at the first glance, but when you have a product like ours, where there are hundreds of small things like this, it can really add up. I believe that everyone should use and improve the same, standard tools so we can have few, but high quality things. When you come up with something new which is just slightly different from the existing one (see Python3 first versions...) I think you are doing the wrong thing.
Honestly, not sure why people are surprised by this. The company is incompetent and not consumer or customer focused by any means.

Their entire operation is optimized to sell products and services to creditors, with no regard for actual consumers. They are a B2B company. They treat their employees poor, and their call center operations are outsourced to third party firms on a cost-basis whom are poorly trained and purely exist to field consumer contacts as required by law, but not actually resolve any issues.

I truly believe credit reporting agencies need to be heavily regulated and operated as a non-profit consumer institution, similar to the BBB.
I tried it out myself. CommonJS (read everything in the wild) exports as default.

That means you can't use the following syntax with (most) existing npm modules:

import * as fs from 'fs';

import { map } from 'lodash';

https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/14369#issuecomment-32903...
I'm not a fan of this.

First of all, requirements.txt is for development requirements. Runtime ones belong in setup.py.

Also, the "extras" feature is already in setup.py via extras_require.

I see no need to use this nonstandard tool when the standard tooling works.
Linux network emulator (NetEm) example: Script for making DNS requests delayed
People in the comments are making references to prank videos and film techniques, but this type of research study has also been conducted multiples times in the last few years by institutions such as Stanford [1], UC San Diego [2], Virginia Tech [3], and more.

[1] http://wendyju.com/publications/RO-MAN2016-Rothenbucher.pdf

[2] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-ghost...

[3] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/08/heres-the-rea...
This is great advice and appears to be a good thing to do, but I just feel weird giving equifax money to protect me from fallout of their data breach. It feels like I'm rewarding them for losing my data.

I bet millions of Americans, who are suddenly aware of their vulnerability to credit fraud and learning about these options, are paying for requests and freezes.
I stand repaired!
So what were the results? Are pedestrians jerks? Do other cars cut them off?
> For Facebook employees: Is this really the company you want to work for? Is this the impact you want to have on the world? Is this really the best place in society to apply your talents?

I've wondered the same about a few companies, Facebook and Amazon in particular. Even if one may be working on some storage deduplication or scaling the system or other seemingly dissociated pieces from the obnoxious front end, how is it possible to imagine that you're truly doing something for the good of humankind (net-net)? I can understand the higher pay, facilities and probably technical and other challenges. But impact on the world at large with consideration for the future being created? I personally don't get it.
> I see no evidence that the CIA directly gave weapons to Al-Nusra or other Al-Qaeda affiliates. And zero evidence of any direct funding or support of ISIS

You stick a very key word there, directly. In fact the US is who funded and armed Osama bin Laden and his followers jihad against the secular government of Afghanistan in the late 1970s and 1980s - but the CIA did it via the Pakistan ISI. The Maktab al-Khidamat actually had connections to organizations all over the USA.

The US press says Cambodia was taken over in 1975 by communists led by Pol Pot, and in a de facto sense that is somewhat true but in a strict de jure sense it is not. Sihanouk, the Cambodian king who had been ousted by a CIA-backed coup by Lon Nol was who officially ran the government. He was in a political, governmental and military coalition with the communists. The US government and press saw his role as a figurehead and it's not that inaccurate. OK, the Cambodian communists are ousted in the 1979 and suddenly the US is looking to oppose Vietnamese communist influence in Cambodia. So who do they fight to keep the UN seat of? Who does US intelligence fund and arm? The political/military coalition of Sihanouk and the Cambodian communists. Which in the 1970s was called the Khmer Rouge. But suddenly things aren't happening directly, and the fig leaf of Sihanouk and other minor figures and groups becomes much bigger. This was reported in the New York Times at the time,
and Nightline went even further, taking a camera crew to Cambodia and showing exactly what was going on - that the US was arming the "Khmer Rouge" rebels whom it had been accusing of genocide a few years earlier.

If a direct link is what is needed then you're not going to find much, as they're not that dumb and incompetent.