skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That’s pretty much unequivocally evil, right? Seriously though, if this guy has a real case, Google is going to have a truly miserable time in court.
Mozilla killed Reading List, signed a referral deal with Pocket, and made misleading-at-best statements for months before coming clean. You bought Pocket more than a year after that.
From one perspective, this just means that the market for software quality is not very tight and that our industry is not empirical in assessing it.
> Is this kind of behavior common for Google?

That is, in fact, exactly what the case is trying to demonstrate by referring to several other lawsuits against Google for similar acts. Remains to be seen if it works.
The Las Vegas Shooter Reportedly Won $5M Gambling in 2015
List of impact craters on Earth
It depends. The article suggests the plaintiff may not have properly protected his intellectual property ahead of time. It may be very hard to get a court to side against Google if what Google did was technically legal.

Evil and illegal are two different things, and sadly, they quite often do not align.
American Assassin 2017
Last time I checked (but perhaps it changed), if I wanted to install my own app on my own iPhone I would have not only to pay for a developer license, but also a special enterprise deployment fee (for non public apps).

I am not a professional developer and I like to tinker, create my own tools. But it is uneconomical for me to pay all these fees just to run my own app on my own hardware. I ended up going the web app route.
The ReDistricting Game
Will be very interesting to see what happens. I do think that companies as big as google certainly seem untouchable. They have a huge amount of resources that could probably flood you with paperwork and litigation. Kudos to this guy for sticking up for his beliefs, at any cost.
> Seems like basic courteousy

Read https://adamcaudill.com/2015/11/19/responsible-disclosure-is...
This is just plain scummy. Their defense is a that it's legal but this is just plain ridiculous. How do you fight a company that has a team of lawyers that can sink you for years and doing so prevents future attempts from happening.

I think the NDA meetings that result in what the lawsuits allege. Note, allege. Should have more stringent regulations to protect the smaller guy. Also google sinking its paws into everything and in many cases misbehaving makes me glad that we have sensible regulations against monopolies if it ever gets that far
I never used AIM in its prime (I was never into instant messaging), but a while back I played a free game called "Emily is Away" and it gave me a good sense of the nostalgia that a lot of people are talking about in this thread.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/6/16435796/emily-is-away-ai...
They also violate freedom #0 making them proprietary.
No, so we can resist and overthrow a totalitarian government
If the facts bear out, even if what Google allegedly did was legal, it's going to be a terrible thing for Google. No one with any interesting tech will ever want to share info ever again.
> He posited that the financial system's algorithm's purpose is to answer, "what should we do?".

Yes, That is just re-stating what the author wrote, without providing any clarifying information.

> You seem to have interpreted that as saying that the financial system should answer that problem for society as a whole.

Maybe yes that is a maximalist interpretation; what is the alternative interpretation (it doesn't seem to be present in the author's text)?

> move away from min-sum towards sum-product (which often works an order of magnitude better) by perhaps implementing basic income. Etc. Etc.

Referencing 'basic income' here seems like a whole society problem to me, which has nothing to do with the technical implementation financial payment gateways, no?
That's the Anglo-Saxon model. In Sweden/Norway/Switzerland/Netherlands, a Phd student costs at least 100k dollars/year to a lab, with full-pension payments. It's a (relatively well-paid) job here.
And SUSE. And Canonical. And LibreOffice. And OwnCloud. And NextCloud. And any number of other projects.
I'm sure there are variations. But the idea of a supertaster is that tastes are more pronounced. So strong/acidic foods can be off-putting. But it's still not the "cause" for not liking a food, more of a degree.
His pay probably lasts as long as that song was popular.
This made me question my understanding of NDAs - are they supposed to restrict usage by the party you told the secret to, or only that they can't share with others?
How to build crowdfunding script like to kickstarter clone
As an avid haskeller with a lot of respect for lisp, I've gotta say I really love the depiction of the Republic of Haskell as a police state, where side effects receive no mercy.
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?

It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff.

In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well.

However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus.

Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie"

And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.
In simple terms, google baited people with good ideas to join google x labs. Then pursued to cancel the projects, and thus cutting out the people who originated these ideas. Finally, google went on to use these ideas to create their own technology, and some have even graduated from Google X Labs.

Basically, evil incubation.
What about child porn? Pedophilia? Human trafficking?
If that's all you're after then nullpass fits the bill exactly.

http://www.nullpass.org/

Warning though, I stopped using it because seed + domain doesn't guarantee that the password will fit the sites password requirements.
IANAL, but: Is that the reason behind the racketeering charge?

They've developed a method of systematic theft of IP, which, though technically legal as an isolated incident, shows malicious intent when strung together.

Is that enough to satisfy the charge, or are they still protected?
>> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so?

But they were under NDA not to disclose the ideas, and yet they started a company marketing a product based on those ideas. If this is a correct interpretation, they don't have the legal ability to do so.

Of course the wording of the NDA is everything in a case like this. I'm assuming Google wrote the NDA when this guy should have provided one for Google to sign.
I wouldn't recommend for training. CPU's work just fine for low intensity inference. Especially online/interactive inference, these are situations where you pass in one example at a time. GPU excel when you pass data in continuous predictable batches.
The problem is that saying "No, I refuse to discuss that" isn't changing any minds. If anything I think it tends to strengthen the resolve of the individuals holding said views. When you just tell people to stop saying things, in the minds of many it's going to indirectly give weight to those views. I think if people took the time to actually talk to other people they would find that though you may disagree with their views, they tend to actually have rationale for those views. And that rationale can expose logical flaws.

To take a slightly less controversial example, I've managed to successfully discuss climate change with a good number of people that felt it was 'fake.' People that do things like effectively scream '97%, idiots!' and move on do a great disservice. This sort of dismissal or appeal to authority is a big part of why there are so many of these people. It absolutely strengthens their resolve since they feel their views cannot be countered logically. And indeed there is more to their views than the satire we created in our heads of them thinking little more than 'dur, it's a Chinese conspiracy.'

Instead when you talk about the interplay between long wavelength energy, short wavelength energy and how they both react to CO2 explaining how precisely it traps energy (and how you can even create experiments at home to show the effect), you can start to explain things in a way that very few people seem willing to do. And willing is probably the wrong word. I think it's more accurate to say that many people who do acknowledge climate change don't actually understand it on any more sophisticated level than those that deny it - and so arguments resort to vitriol instead of logic. And I think that lack of knowledge is far more transparent than most people realize. So you end up with two sides, equally uninformed, slinging mud at one another and both taking their own self assigned moral high-ground.

The point here is that refusing to discuss things or scolding adults for holding such views, does not make them go away - and I think there is a very strong argument to be made that it does quite the opposite. For the most extreme example, one needs only look to who is currently the head of our country. And in this desire to refuse to even discuss things with people, 'we' even did things such as managing to pressure Elon Musk into drawing a line and ultimately leaving the president's advisory council. And was that a good idea? He's still just as legitimate a president with just as much control. The only difference is now there's one fewer voice of logic and reason trying to encourage him to do the right thing. And while those voices may ultimately have failed to achieve anything, their absence makes such a possibility a foregone conclusion.
Good points, though those should be spelt out in the original document/site
For me, I use pass cli. Gets the job done.
I believe it and a very good point. But do you have a source?
Depends on how good your lawyer is. There's no cookie-cutter NDA from Party A to Party B with fixed roles.
How many of your NDAs have you gotten huge silicon valley companies to sign? If you're a little guy, that never happens.
Incorrect. HK has one one the most beautiful envinoments any city state has to offer.

Explore more.
Yeah that post makes a lot of sense. It seems like this would establish a norm of generally trying to coordinate with a vendor in many circumstances (if a web service is vulnerable hard for users to fix it themselves after all).

Might of misread what "norm" meant here
That has never been true. The enterprise deployment fee is only needed if you want to deploy it to OTHER phones besides your own and even then it would have to be a lot of them before it mattered.

The developer license is all you need to put it on your own phone. Source: Started developing iOS apps in 2008.
Agreed regarding trying to get the information in front of the right people, or even just into the company. Recently been trying to contact 20-30+ companies regarding public exposure of private data, and I’ve had a real spectrum of results...

Some had a bug bounty/disclosure program, and fixed it within minutes. Some had CERTs... who never acknowledged the email. Some didn’t have any public contact methods, so had to hunt for them via google. Some acknowledged the issue, removed the private data but didn’t fix the actual ‘hole’...

On the whole, I spent more time trying to find contacts for websites, than actually finding the issue(s).
The article presents only one side of the story.

I have never heard of Google being accused of something similar in the past. Does anyone have any pointers to similar incidents?
So the contention is that Google stole his idea for building design software? His representation is a bunch of patent trolls and the suit has already been going on for 3 years. The only news is now they are contending that many major Google products are based on coordinated and systematic IP theft (Search, Ads, Maps, Wallet, Hangouts, Youtube, Android). Pretty sure this is entirely bullshit.

Actual lawsuit: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
Before Uber became Public Enemy #1 and prior to the Otto/Levandowski dispute, Google was planning on competing with Uber despite being an investor, which led Kalanick to e-mail David Drummond about it [1]. Drummond eventually left Uber's board (which harkens back to Schmidt leaving Apple's board) but this was well after the relationship had been deteriorating.

[1] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008...
Cookie-cutter NDAs are nearly always very one-sided. Some of the NDAs our company signs with other companies take weeks of lawyers bickering about things that to the uninitiated seem like useless bullshit. But the fact that those things are there in the initial version, and that the lawyers of the other company start out by saying there's no way they will be removed, and then after weeks of bickering agree to the changes should tell you something.
Perhaps it should be normal.. but it isn't. Which is also why we have great teachers, and ineffective teachers.
Yes, it tells me juniors still don't have any experience maintaining systems. And that in turn tells me I won't be out of work any time soon.
> It just doesn't make any sense that people are inherently bad at teaching.

Whether it makes sense or not, what is your personal experience with others who try to teach you? Did you have nothing but highly effective teachers in school?

If you did, you are in the rare minority.
What if "paid_available == False" the first time, but later, "paid_available == True"? Is the "standard, Open Source, two-clause BSD" license that applies at first invalidated?
>"It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money."

I'm curious about your comment that this is "pretty standard stuff." Do you mean in the context of Google X agreements? Do you transfer intellectual property to them as part of the employment contract?

Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement?
I had a similar experience with Google; a mutual NDA was signed as seen here https://goo.gl/K9Wd1U.

- Feb 2013 created SpeakerBlast; turn multiple devices into one sync speaker via a URL

- March 2013 Samsung released the Galaxy 4 with Group Play (same concept as SpeakerBlast)

- April 2013 Google/Motorola emails/calls me asking would I sell SpeakerBlast for inclusion into the Moto X

- May 2013 Fly out from Baltimore to demo/meet with Google ATAP in the hopes of fulfilling my goal/dream of being a successful inventor. During the meeting they bait my partner and I for our secret sauce then leave the room. They come back and say time to go and lead us to the elevator and say the race is on. See ya!

As the David in this David n Goliath story I have no idea if our work was used in Chrome Audio or not. The head of that unit is run by the Google ATAP tech lead we met with.

Ive heard this is just how it is in Silicon Valley.. treat the little guy and girls like crap. Take their hard work, steal it and stomp on them. Things need to change!!!
> For the first 30 years of your life, you make your habits. For the last 30 years of your life, your habits make you.

So if you live longer than 60, I wonder that means of those years in-between, after age 30.
That might have made sense up until this latest measurement. The latest measurement found a smaller size for the proton in ordinary hydrogen, consistent with the previous smaller measurement for muonic hydrogen.
> a successful open source project typically turns into an unpaid second job.

which the maintainer voluntarily performs. If it's a burden, stop! If users of said software are asking for features/bug-fixes, and you as a maintainer can't be bothered, then ask them to pay for said fixes (either via a common-pot method like patreon, or a one time fee, or some other method). If those people asking for fixes aren't willing to pay, then they clearly don't really need those fixes.
You state it as it is fact. That’s what the plaintiff claims, yes. But it doesn’t mean it’s true.
The problem with “Don’t be evil” is that evil is subjective.
He was just as articulate at 22. When you see his interviews during the launch of the Apple I, you see the same Jobs as in this interview several years later.
You can enumerate S3 buckets (and other cloud operators) by DNS bruteforce, or looking at how the company name them on their website and working through some common name.

Did this recently and found 1000’s of public buckets.
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?

Google/GV was shit listed by a bunch of startup founders in Portland many years ago because they "stole a company" they were partnering with there. The founder was somebody everybody liked and PDX tech didn't take it well (and yes, we all talk to each other).

This does happen and you need to be very careful with these sorts of arrangements. They know they put stars in people's eyes and I've seen them take advantage of it.
Some students from developing countries, yes. And I'm sure that admonition was largely aimed at them. IIRC most of the room looked European.

you might be used to plagiarism back home, but please take it seriously

Yeah, this is a problem my university runs into too -- international students are around 20% of the undergraduate population but consistently around 50% of the cases of academic dishonesty. :-(
Features of Seresto Dog Collar
If you're shilling, it is.
Apple released an implementation of Swift on Linux since the first day they open-sourced it. IBM is behind it with their web framework, and some people are porting it to windows as well.
Are you referring to free provisioning? My understanding [1] is that it is only for temporary testing an app on the device, you can't leave the app permanently, you have to reinstall it regularly.

And you still have to pay a yearly fee, which creates a high barrier to entry for non professionals.

[1] https://developer.xamarin.com/guides/ios/getting_started/ins...
Accented words are so passé.
> You can state your preference that I coordinate with you... but you can't dictate that to me --- and the suggestion that you could is presumptuous and rude.

I think you are in the minority on this. If the hacker community go too far in this direction don't be surprised if there are calls to reign it in with legislation.
>Google's leadership profoundly betrayed the longtime personal trust and friendship of Apple's leadership in stealing what Steve Jobs believed were Apple's most prized possessions.

You may think it’s a coincidence, but then you realize it isn’t.

https://verbose.co/33
Thanks for sharing this. Sorry to hear about how you were given the run around.

It reminded me of the advice from one of Paul Graham's essays: Don't Talk to Corp Dev [1]

>Distractions are the thing you can least afford in a startup. And conversations with corp dev are the worst sort of distraction, because as well as consuming your attention they undermine your morale.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/corpdev.html
I'm utterly confident that if I looked I could find examples of comedians telling jokes about those subjects and audiences laughing.

For example, I just searched Google for "comedian pedophilia joke" and the first result is about Louis C.K. doing one during an SNL monologue.

Nothing is off limits in comedy. Plenty of stuff is in bad taste, but as long as the comedian is actually trying to be funny I think most or at least many other comedians will back them up.
I don't think it's possible to create a satisfying diagram like this. It's already been said, but compartmentalizing languages into "paradigms" is generally pointless.
Ah yes, Steve Jobs would be quite the guy to lecture anyone about betrayls of trust and friendship.
I know someone who recovered from an extremely traumatic experience through accidental self medication whilst out partying.
It has been going on for a while:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/17/8048779/google-x-eli-atti...

This 2008 patent application has a number of interesting illustrations:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20090234696

(note the actually granted Google patents that reference this one)

Seems like the original idea was LEGO-like modular system of components that can be combined into buildings.
A Summary of Today's Bitcoin Censorship by Theymos and Blockstream
Larry and Sergey must have watched too much Shark Tank... what buffonary if the evidence stands scrutiny
> Things need to change!!!

How should things change? I genuinely feel for you so keep the rest of what I'm going to say at arms distance.

The way I see it, you are essentially asking people not to learn from each other. Software is not basic science where, if you discover a process or a particle, you are putting into words something outside the human brain.

Software (mathematical formulations aside) describes how the brain works. Anyone can hear a high level description of your SpeakerBlast an imagine a way to sync speakers. Their implementation might be radically different to yours but there is no way for you to stop me from imagining a solution based simply on your two sentence description of the product.

If you want to learn more about this process, there's a book by a neuroscientist, The Tell-Tale Brain by VS Ramachandran, which delves into the process of mirroring and meme spreading.
No worries, they'll release a Parsey McParseface and then the world knows again that they're just a geeky tech startup having some fun.

Google is an advertising company. They can easily sacrifice reputation where it brings them the most profit and fix it again with a bit of PR.
Nothing to see here, just a non-open-source license someone decided to write and then an article with the word "manifesto" in it to make it seem like it's worth anything.
Was that really surprising? The company that builds the first self driving cars will have an easy entrance into the ride service industry.
Yes. I meant that those requests don't loop back into the Worker again -- I didn't mean that they skip cache.
Recently a new framework was released https://gomatcha.io/. It supports iOS and Android but runs on MacOS only. It is in early stage.
Official solution(https://github.com/golang/mobile) is also is in very early stage.
So I think progress is there but none of the solutions are production ready.
There is no benefit in complaining here. If you actually care, this sounds like it’s your opportunity to get a lawyer for some minimal amount of money to reach out to Attia’s lawyers and see if they’re interested. It seems they are pooling past examples demonstrating similar behavior.
And to provide different email addresses for every website, so that your identity is difficult to correlate between accounts, which partially mitigates the privacy implications of a breach, and fully mitigates the spam / phishing consequences (since you can delete that email alias).
You're making it seem like it's just a technicality over definitions when it really is a fundamental difference. It explicitly rejects the "freedom zero" of open source, the freedom to actually run the software. It means that if I inadvertently download L0 software from npm at work, 91 days later my company is in violation of criminal copyright law. No open source license does that, not even AGPL. ("But you'd also be in violation if it were regular commercial software!" True, but in that case it wouldn't be on npm and I wouldn't have made that mistake).

If you want to position L0 as a way for commercial software vendors to distribute source, that's fine. But I strongly object to the implication that it's just a "patch" on top of existing open source licenses.