skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> He presumably had previous experience with operating other GUI programs, and experience with standard computer concepts like programs and files. The big benefit here is that a lot of GUI paradigms are shared between very different kinds of programs, so something that would've been explained in text in a bound manual in the past gets covered very early on, either through experimentation, or someone explaining it.

Exactly! Just like reading documentation takes a bunch of knowledge as granted that most (but not all!) of the population possesses (reading, understanding diagrams, graphs, step by step assembly directions, etc.) You've put your finger on the wonderful thing that computer interaction has given us over the past decade or two - a shared visual/interactive language that, while far from perfect, lets the average teenager pick up Audacity and be productive with it within seconds.
What about the "Maybe try rendering an image of a 3d model of a face, then attempt to reconstruct it from the rendered image and measure the displacement from the original model." approach for generating high resolution training data?
Canada isn't innocent on the racism part, we just do it to First Nations instead.
yeah don't debate me. flag me you pussies.
Even the fox knows when he's bested
Matches pretty well actually.
I'm standing here, in awe, that you literally wrote that on a comment.

Like... you actually believe merely having UHC will somehow stop stupid people from either 1) being disgusting or 2) being too stupid and forgoing vaccinations.

Like, you actually think that EVERYONE who suffers is doing it simply because they can't walk into their local hospital and be like "hook me up with them needles." People like Jenny McCarthy talking about how vaccinations cause autism don't actually exist.

And I say all this as a freakin' liberal. Come on guys. Up your brain game. Because this is one step above the political discourse equivalent of a a bumper sticker. Just chant and shoehorn in whatever catchphrase / slogan that's barely applicable into the conversation.

A bumper sticker has never changed the world.
Surely Google should realise that Topaz and Garnet clash with font names on AmigaOS?
I'm a white hetro male. If people have a go at us I'm not fussed it's not going to achieve much. Things like saying let's gas the jews or beat up gays are more problematic because those have been problems.
"$arrayOfObjects | ConvertTo-Csv" will create one row per object in the array, with a column for each public field of the object. That's exactly what happened, and it seems like a reasonable behavior to me.

Do you have an alternative? Maybe for the edge case where the contents of the CSV is a list of primitives, it should give you a "Value" column? Or did you expect that, given an array of stuff, the best approach is to encode the whole array in a single CSV row?
Part of my point was that the homeless are a particularly difficult population to reach with health interventions like vaccinations even with universal healthcare.
"You are no longer David Webb."

"From now on, you will be known as; Mark Rohrwasser."

"Welcome to Equihax."
So I take it you implicitly agree with the original article's thesis?
Practical File System Design: The Be File System (1999)
Derp, reading comprehension.

Same reasoning applies though, albeit other processes doing the lifting.
Yeah I saw this being peddled by FOX looks like people are repeating it over and over...
Seriously, I'm mean what else are you going to do with a bit more than a billion dollars? Develop a full line of Google rockets and disrupt the space industry or something? :-)

But you raise an interesting point, what should we expect from 6 years of effort and 1.1B$ ?

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/17-billion-dollar-companies-c...
> I can't find any data to back that up, can you point me at some?

These[1] are some recent results of the computer language benchmark game, where Java beats Go overall even though startup time is measured (similar results here[2]). How much faith you'd want to place in these benchmarks is questionable. As to real workloads, that's what people I know at Google tell me.

> It's still missing valuable things that have been around and proven to be very common and desired, like format reading/writing...

I don't think any of it should be part of the standard library. In fact, one of the best things happening with Java now is that the standard library is being broken apart, and things like XML, cryptography and JDBC are taken out of the "base" module.

OTOH, a standard library should provide truly foundational stuff, like good data structures, deep monitoring infrastructure, things that Go seriously lacks.

> You have to use an IDE and Gradle/Maven to come close to the out-of-the-box experience with Go.

But that's because the Go ecosystem is poor in comparison. The Java ecosystem is so strong and well established that the "out of the box" package simply can't compete with it (and when it tries -- as with the logging API -- it loses). Go had to provide this stuff out of the box because there was no ecosystem. True, this makes Go much easier and more pleasant to get started with for beginners, but you can't compare something that's built around an ecosystem, and something built to be self contained.

[1]: https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/re...

[2]: https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?la...
> But I guarantee you that most people reading this work at companies that are similarly vulnerable.

We hold Equifax to a higher standard because of the nature of the data that it collects.

> Everybody is insecure everywhere always

Some of us think that's neither necessary nor inevitable.

> If we can't get it right, why do you want the execs' heads to roll? Are you sure you won't be next on the chopping block?

In some professions, including many engineering ones, gross negligence is punished with the removal of one's ability to practice professionally. It's imaginable that if there were consequences for one's actions, things wouldn't be "insecure everywhere always".

Really, how am I still finding people taking time out to defend the incredible ineptitude of a privacy-oblivious company in a hated industry?
Can someone explain how interchanging the loops make it immune to mispredictions please? I don't get it
I see your mainframe and raise you a dec mini running UNIX

http://www.sensi.org/~svo/glasstty/
encrypt the data, store the keys on a different (set of) machine(s)
Maybe bio-degradable bags would work for the purpose referred to in the article? The kind from a material that can be used for kitchen waste (food scraps).
But that is not even the point -- when facebook invokes the nullification clauses in the patent grant, you're simply back to no patent grant, at all. How is having a patent grant not strictly better?

No, I'm not happy with that, but that is also not what's happening here. You're still welcome to sue Facebook if you want, but you'd lose all patent licensed to you in the PATENT file.

I'm also not happy with spreading FUD. Bringing up non-software patent is a strawman.
Going out on a limb but given the massive security breach, it seems we are not dealing with the best security folks here.

Just to expand, there is nothing wrong with having a music degree, there are qualified, experienced people who don't hold the degree in their current field. Except in this case we start from the end, given the situation, we are assuming we are not dealing with qualified, experienced people but amateurs. So then we are looking and combing through their credential, proof of competence etc., and so far it doesn't look good.
William Gibson was doing this in the 80's.
I don't think most people look beyond their own immediate vicinity. They never step back and consider the more abstract picture. They see what the neighbors are doing and parrot. They don't bother to notice "Hey... my child is going to reach 18 years of age never having once been involved in an activity which was not regimented, regulated, and immediately overseen by an adult authority figure." How, exactly, are they meant to learn to solve their own problems? How are they meant to learn how to interact with people with vastly different levels of experience to themselves as equals? They're great at acting subservient to their seniors. That's useless in many cases, dangerous in most. And they're great at acting superior to their juniors. That's useless in all cases, dangerous as well in most.
You can only count the highway system as a subsidy if you pretend a highway between, say, San Francisco and Los Angeles is there to benefit the people of the Central Valley. And it's not.

Certainly the mortgage market is distorted by the federal government, but I have yet to see any evidence of subsidy for suburban borrowers.
I understand the preference and the difficulty created by methods and operators that are essentially statements instead of expressions. However, when making that criticism we should also acknowledge the benefit of requiring or encouraging multiple lines for those actions.

if (x=42) {}

Has burned many people. Append having a useful return is comparable, though probably not as much of a trap.

> sorted(data)[1:][0]

I don't want to get into the weeds, but shouldn't that just be

sorted(data)[1]

Or if you like unpacking for clarity

first, second = sorted(data)[:2]

?
... admittedly not great for small sizes due to the striping, but awesome for a relazing at a big giant terminal window and doing various simple things.
Oh wow...I think I disagree with everything in this comment.

If you can't monitor critical bug notifications and can't fix or provide a compensating control, you should not be in security.

I hope all affected parties are able to sue them.
plus it is the font of unix, essentially.
It is unreasonable to equate "most people ... work at companies" with either a corporation that is an essential (obligatory) component of participation in modern society, or one with a value of $17.5B. Either and this breach would be fairly inexcusable, but both and it is really an egregious failing.

Most people work for companies with neither the data anybody would much care were stolen, nor the resources to secure it. Equifax had both, bigly.
Show HN: Hott.Dog, Vote on Hot Dog Related Issues
I cannot for the life of me fathom how you think this is okay. I've worked in far less stringent environments than I would expect from Equifax and we would never have allowed a vulnerability like that to last a few days, let alone months.

This is indeed food for thought, and what I'm mentally chewing on is: why would you - or anyone - make such outlandish statements in a comment on HN? Are you seriously excusing them for reasons that effectively boil down to "this could have happened anywhere"? Do you really hold companies that hoard such sensitive data sets to that low a standard, and if so, why? Whyyyyyy?
O?
APFS
$94 billion in cash burning a hole in their pocket. $20x billion in new cash pouring in annually, expanding by 10%-20% per year.

In another two years they'll be net cash richer than Apple is (as unlike Apple they pay no dividend and have almost entirely avoided taking on debt).

There aren't very many large companies they can buy with that money, due to perpetually increasing anti-trust concerns. I suppose they could maul ~$25 billion buying Snap and probably get away with it due to Facebook (but comeon).

So what to do? Burn $1.1 billion on self-driving tech. Will it pan out? Doesn't really matter. Their search monopoly isn't going anywhere near-term (probably) and they'll have $200 billion in net cash in another 4 or 5 years. They could vaporize $11.1 billion on self-driving tech in the next couple of years and it would not matter, either to shareholders (oh, some would pretend to be upset) or to their operations.
Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good
This is a company, one of three, which contains the credit data of hundreds of millions people, and a central figure in approving all sorts of financial transactions. Not only do they hold highly valuable data, they also have plenty of resources to draw upon to build an exceptional level of security. I think they very well should be held to a much higher standard then a random company using the Spring framework.
I think the original article makes a plausible case that the plastic bag ban was a contributing factor to this outbreak. That's irrelevant to the point I was making in the comment however.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept this, and find it to be a rather upsetting justification of negligence. I've worked at multiple F100's, and in situations storing data far less critical or voluminous compared to Equi, our security protocol was FAR more rigid. Google's secure data solution is a fantastic demonstration of this, and I would be taken aback if I found out they were 4 months delayed for a critical vuln in even a peripheral system. (I say this while I currently have no relationship to G, and despite being an often-critic.)

Even in academia, where we absolutely were understaffed, insecure, and compromised, we stayed on top of the CVEs for the tools we used and did our damnedest to not fall behind. I fully reject that a group with the resources of Equifax could not have been more proactive.

I also think it's entirely understandable to crucify this company, as NOT ONLY were they lax in their job, their failure resulted in material harm for individuals who had no meaningful choice but to participate with them. I find the idea of these "Structurally mandated protection rackets" appalling enough that I certainly would hold one of them to a harsher standard than I would a typical company. With great power etc etc.
You don't need to use a checksum, just add some irrelevant URL parameter like "?sitever=X" to all asset URLs, then in the packaging/build script just replace it with the current site version:

find ./ -type f -exec sed -i s/?sitever=X/?sitever=$VERSION/g' {} \;
My understanding is that many YouTubers use Patreon not only to supplement their income, but also as insurance against their videos getting demonetized over issues they may not have control over. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as the saying goes.
I guarantee every person living and defecating in the street in San Diego is eligible for MediCal or MedicAid - the very programs Sen. Sanders is touting as a panacea for single payer healthcare.
The AF Engineer Who Shagged a Foreign National and Lost His Security Clearance
Anyone remember the anti-nuclear protests trying to stop Cassini from launching ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_S3pvt2PvY

I do.

Anti-science savages who would have prevented one of the greatest achievements of the human race.

It's why I no longer think of Michio Kaku as anything but a bad joke. He should have known better.
Yes, according to wikipedia 85% of minerals and 98% of metal ore is produced by surface mining. Surface mining is above 300 m deep, and usually above 100 m. This includes mountaintop removal and highwall mining, which are still basically underground. Strip and pit mining are the other main types of surface mining.

Even so this type of mining tends to happen in mountainous areas. Mountains are places where minerals are pushing up from deeper areas, and they're subject to more erosion, so you find a lot of valuable minerals. They are also colocated with seams, which are chock-full of minerals. Valleys and low spots are places where sediment accumulates and covers minerals, and are rarely worth mining. The altitude of a mine is usually much, much greater than the relatively negligible depth of the mine itself.
>I expect you'll find that your city core pays for it.

I expect you're wrong about that.

> Every calculation I've ever seen about the expenses of suburbs ends up with downtown paying for suburban development.

It all depends on who is doing the accounting. Much of the infrastructure built outside cities isn't built for the local residents at all, but it's there to service the cities. As I pointed out above, you can't count a highway between San Francisco and Los Angeles as a subsidy for the Central Valley, and yet that's exactly what academics in at places like CUNY do. How convenient.

>Heavily subsidized suburban residents then go to their city council meetings and complain about property taxes going to mass transit and similar uses. shrug

I mostly see complaining by people who live in cities. People who state confidently how much more efficient cities are and then can't explain why everything they buy is more expensive. Shrug.
If you were asked to explain why the project you are currently working on is useful to someone, could you?
Friend Unifying Platform – the first open source virtual cloud computer
I wonder if they licensed any tech from Microsoft because faceid seems to work a lot like Windows Hello
you don't get to legitimately and simultaneously claim to want a debate and derail any such rational discourse with phrases such as "Dumb as rocks liberal politics."
"However, when I traded a motorcycle helmet for a stroller and bottle warmer"...

sounds like a bad trade to me..
In my contracts I normally require half up front before works starts and payment within 2 business days after work completion.
If it is a long range project (two or more weeks) I require ACH direct deposits every Friday morning before 7AM. When doing this clients will normally insure they have the payment scheduled to be paid on time automatically.

If the client is late paying they are charged 10% or more interest depending on the value that is charged on a monthly basis. If they are not paid up in full within 60 days I take out a Judgement Lien on their personal and business properties to recuperate any losses I may have had to incur due to the none payment.
It's likely that the compromised Equifax data was plaintext log files of people trying to log in for things like free credit reports or to dispute items on their credit reports, which contained all the data required to log into these parts of the website (e.g. names, date of birth, address, SSN, etc.)
This is not a technical failure; it's a failure in basic house keeping. For a company that size you would expect processes in place such as a maintained asset register and patch maintenance in place. Not having these controls in place is gross negligence. This is not a small startup we are talking about, this is a multimillion dollar company that can afford a small team to implement basic process driven security controls.

The fix is not a simply apt-get. Upgrading struts can break things and testing and verification takes time... but it's a machine hosted on the internet with troves of customer data... as such I think your being too easy on them.
None of the previous articles posted in the search you linked... (a) were articles, or (b) had any mention of the fact that Equifax has evidently gone to great lengths to scrub this information off the internet. The video interviews with their CISO from before the breach were eye-opening. "Resistance to the cloud is futile."

You can still find a transcript of one of the two interviews here, but it does not include this quote

https://archive.is/Je7Yi

https://archive.is/6M8mg
> Yes, it was stupid for them to have everybody's PII attached to that one webserver. A single point of failure should never result in compromising the whole system. But think about how that architecture would work in practice. A customer service rep still needs to get at most of your data. It's a credit bureau. Where would the data be stored in a way that a remote code exec wouldn't be able to snag it?

A particular customer service rep needs to be able to get at most of one person's data at a given point in time. In fact, they should probably be somewhat rate-limited as to how many people's data they can look at in a given period of time. The front-end server that runs the app that serves up this data probably should not even be allowed access to the full set of data at any given point in time. Also, presumably this has to happen from a desktop computer at a call center that's at a company that contracts with Equifax, so it would be reasonable to assume those computers are VPNing to some Equifax network, not that access to all customer data from any internet address is a necessity.
That's like saying we've all written code susceptible to a buffer overflow, so when a medical device (or air traffic control or whatever) vendor does the same then it's ok.

There's a reasonable expectation that those sorts of companies produce very resilient, fail safe software.

Credit reference agencies deal in PII. It's their main asset. It's incumbent on them to protect that data with secure coding practices, proper patching policies, pen-testing, etc. Above all else, that's their key professional obligation.

If they refuse to do this, they shouldn't be in business. I would go so far as to say that given their size and available financial assets they should be held criminally liable. There's no reasonable excuse for them not securing the data entrusted to them.
As usual the answer to the question in the headline is no. You can read the article for more.
No, this is the exact opposite, it's the anti-1999. He's offering late stage companies this deal - don't IPO, stay private, avoid the IPO and the making a bunch of connected Wall Streeters rich on your IPO pop (money that should have gone to the startup instead), and sell a large portion of your equity to us instead. We'll not only make a large enough investment that it's a viable alternative to what you would take in an IPO, but we'll also act as active advisor that helps scale your business (and we're the team that scaled Facebook so we know what we're doing).

It's a compelling offer for any founding team still in control of their unicorn startup and who is still in it to build a great business.
> overturned the result of the election

The public IC statements very specifically noted that impact of RU efforts was not assessed, only the actions themselves.
My guess is Apple isn't worried about being consistent. They will provide the best solution according to the tech available at the time and the other constraints of the product.
Just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that's the way they should be. Maybe if there were harsher punishments for companies that were lax with consumer data, consumer data hacks wouldn't be so damn prevalent.
False. When no one lived here, everything was not private property.

The mastodons and giant sloths did not claim property rights over the land.

That's not the "default" state.
The point is, you can hold them to whatever standard you want to. We collectively have not figured out any techniques to achieve the goal: to be impervious, always. And that's what you demand (or "require," as patio is fond of saying).

You can disagree with that, but you'd be hard-pressed to justify that position. Six decades of computing history would contradict you. And as someone who saw the landscape of real-world codebases and deployments at nearly a hundred companies, there is almost always a way in. People are smug thinking their code is great till you show them an SQL injection that works, or pop up an alert(1) on their favorite front end framework.

The moment the world freaks out about this lack of security, we've all lost. Imagine a dystopian future where the only way to write consequential software is to have it approved by three committees. You might think that's how it already is, but we can move way farther in that direction. Just look at how hard it is to run a simple medical study.
Right. This seems like an ideal application for an EV. I'm surprised no one has done it before.
vaccination doesn't have much to do with universal health care. About half of states currently require childhood HepA vaccinations, the others don't http://www.immunize.org/laws/hepa.asp