skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
ProtonVPN is my first and only VPN - occasionally there are connection issues. Speed is not superb as far as I can tell but sufficient for most use cases. I tend to stick with them. No idea if they are better or worse. I chose them b/c with regards to privacy they seem trustworthy.
> Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really?

Exactly

The need to limit our freedom to harm others through our freedom and the need to protect the majority from the power of the singles are two concepts specifically stated in the universal human rights declaration
I keep reading about how the "notch" is ugly and annoying, but "you get used to it". Like sitting behind someone with a big hat in the movie theatre, after awhile, you don't even notice. Personally, I change seats in that scenario.

I just find it hard square claims of "the future of the smartphone" with reviews like "you get used to it".
How long does those $300 last you?
It's not only about the notch it's also the curved lines at the edges. Those would still cut out your video if the notch wasn't there. In my opinion the usable area of the phone is much smaller than it seems at first sight and the iPhone 8 Plus is a lot better in that respect.

I do like the fact that they managed to restrain themselves from abusing the rounded edges for display, that was something I always hated about the Samsung Edge family.
Fun Fact, not as robust but the iOS TV app does this also
From the number of YouTube channels that promote them, I expect they must have a strong affiliate program. Just a possible bias to keep in mind...
IMO there should be a window, say a year. That way evergreen topics can be rediscussed over and over. But the way it currently works fragments the comments over multiple links submitted on the same week. This one, for instance, is lost in the ether https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ocdtrekkie

Why not aggregate on the same thread?
Did she pay though?
The US is a weird 'country' when compared to the other 'Western' countries in Europe and South America. We're more 'commonwealth-y' than France or Argentina.

We don't have a national police/gendarme and are very against the thought of forming one. Just look at the mess of jurisdictions that the FBI and ATF have, let alone any other agency. You'd have to re-write the constitution to get one.

Our states really are sovereign in their own rights. In Colorado you can smoke as much weed as you like, but you can't even ride a bike if your BAC is over 0.05%. In Texas, you can drink in the car as long as you are 'sober'. California has some pretty strange laws over water rights and property tax. Pennsylvania won't allow you to buy liquor in certain counties on Sunday. The laws here are very strange comparatively.

Each state has it's own 'army' in a kinda, sorta, not really, but yes really way. Navies differ, but Wyoming seriously wanted a battleship for a lake of theirs.

Slavery is it's own mess of evil, but also demonstrates how different the US can be. We had a war over that one, still managed to keep on humming, kinda.

Our second amendment is also insane to foreigners except the Swiss. Some states think it's fine, some don't. There's a bit of a spat going on right now over it, what with the massacres and all.

We sure do love our flag though, that is true. Many people say that's because we are so diverse, we need something to keep together. I say it's the English language, football, and American Idol. Oh, also the racism. That seems to 'help' too.

Also, we've never had sustained conscription here, like in South Korea, Italy, Austria, Israel, etc. Only ~7% of us have ever served in the armed forces in any way. I couldn't find easy numbers for other countries, but that 18-20 year old male conscription laws would skew the percentages higher, I'd think.
I agree, there's a lot of policy grey area which potentially leads to issues like these. I'm discussing with Techstars, and they'll hopefully be closing these loopholes moving forward.

This was my first hackathon. I was a bit naive and didn't know what conversations to have at the start. I didn't go into the weekend intending to start a startup or win. I also wish the event organizers had at least mentioned expectation-setting, because it was just... BOOM! And we're off!

At the end of the weekend I definitely had a conversation with Mark about needing to determine next steps. I was quite clear that I wasn't sure the project would be continuing.
>"Today's CO2 concentration of around 400 ppm exceeds the natural variability seen over hundreds of thousands of years,"[0]

That's the part that opens and shut's the "debate" surrounding human-cause climate change. When you have that much data, combined with the fact that we build and use machines that spew carbon there can not be any other explanation for the Co2 levels. Case closed.

[0]: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide-co2-...
> More candidates means more chaff, but also more wheat.

That needs substantiation. It's not immediately obvious in any way.

About Babel, notice how we never had a problem playing with language-level features that target the PC? That's the difference a good VM makes (although on the PC case, it's not virtual). Besides, you are conflating VMs and languages somehow - they have only a tenuous relation.

About the speed, Javascript misses most of the expressiveness of Python and Ruby. It's more on line with Java but if you want dynamically typed languages, with PHP and Perl too. Yet, it's not any faster than PHP and Perl. It has reasonably fast runtimes - those are not an issue for the language, but are not a big selling point either.

Overall, the reason Javascript still exists and is viewed as a serious language is all because it has a monopoly on the browsers. It was worked on enough that if that monopoly goes away it will still be a good choice for some stuff, but it is not an stellar language, and can't be coerced into becoming one unless it can pass through a Perl5 - Perl6 level transition.
How to Manage Product Development from Abroad: 3 Tips for Leaders
yeah but there, other currencies make more sense.
> Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security

That is simply, and trivially proved to be, untrue.
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the work you're putting into this! It's been a great resource for me when I tinker with my own programming language projects.
>>> That's not to say that I'm a fan of much of what the US military does, but it's rather off-base for foreigners from other NATO and MNNA countries to criticize the US for its military, when they're far and away the outsize beneficiaries of it.

Something is wrong with this logic. Why are you free to "not be a fan" to certain things about the military but it's "off-base" when other people aren't fans either?
> Could this be a submarine piece?

Considering that Wired is a legacy media (Condé Nast) publication, it's not inconceivable.
Drunken Master 2 has one of the most depressing endings I've ever seen in a movie. After the final fight (which involves his drinking industrial grade alcohol to power up enough to win) the movie flashes forwards and it turns out that Jackie's character is severely and permanently mentally retarded because of the alcohol he drank.

This was taken out of the American release of the film.
What benefit does Containerum offer over a docker-machine CLI with something like the Digital Ocean adapter?
An incident response blog post containing 0day vuln
I believe American companies are uncompetitive in the "new world order" - where 99% of durable consumer goods (yes, that's how economists call it) categories are either made in China, or not being made at all (edit.)

Americans are not as innovative and strong as Chinese in the way they appropriate designs and ideas: Chinese extract all value from novel high margin niches quickly, they run at the forefront at the race to the bottom in mass market goods, and do painless exits from product niches that are sucked dry and are out of trend/hype cycle.

American companies needs to become more innovative to compete with Chinese. Completely scraping the useless concept of "intellectual" property of every kind, and the idea that one can "own" and idea and create captive markets through that ownership will be the first step in that direction.
>Apple could literally release a phone with zero changes to it over the previous "generation" and billions would still want it.

Yes, but not because of the mindless sheep angle you seem to want it to be. Lots of people are comfortable using iPhones and like how they work. They don't want to to switch to something else. The End.
The screenshot shown in the article shows Slack using well over 600 MB of RAM. I'm not sure I find this acceptable for a chat app with four "tabs" open.
It's a good case for training the attention to spot obvious vulnerabilities in the code.
No, it isn't. It introduces a non-standard situation where the actors' motivations are hard to model, and results in a non-standard outcome. That doesn't help build the firmer X-free worldmodel that I would count as a refutation of X.

It requires us to posit someone who's money-hungry enough to do something disgusting for a large amount of money and yet who still would spend all of that gain to get some (for-most-people) trivial kick out of seeing someone else do the same.

Well, yes, if two people both had that bizarre preference set, and you fully intuited the implications of that situation, it wouldn't be strange to view it as creation of that much value, because both of them satisfied each other's values.

I don't see how this parable carries more kick than if you cut off the parable halfway through and said, "hah! Someone ate feces for money! That's silly, isn't it?" Yes, bizarre values lead to bizarre outcomes. But then, if that's all you want to prove, then just "go Rule 34" and link some fetish sites.

To the extent that the parable has a valuable lesson, it's "back-and-forth exchange of money for services, if officially canceled out, is a kind of gain in utility that doesn't show up in formal accounting". (E.g. Alice provides romantic satisfaction to Bob, who simultaneously provides romantic satisfaction to Alice. They do not transfer money on net. "We're right where we were before, and didn't create any value." Um, yeah you did.)

Or, if the point is that decisions can be regretted (which you could tweak the Alice/Bob example to include) , sure, but that doesn't shed a lot of light on the Subjective Theory of Value.
My mail usage is far more agnostic to its protocol than my web usage is. Google may hold far too much data to generate a profile of me and relevant ads, but using GMail doesn't fundamentally affect the content of my email or inbox, or even how I use email. But if I switch tabs to YouTube (i.e. The Web), targeted content and traffic funnelling is immediately apparent.

You proved my point about esoteric appeal because my argument was opposite to how you viewed it: that us techies get blinded by irrelevant concepts because we can relate to them, that are otherwise esoteric outside the HN bubble.
Computer-generated lines with a human feel
Indeed, ssh -D {port} is something I use heavily (to create a SOCKS5 connection to a remote server, effectively a VPN)
I think chisleu meant that they consider Verizon to be so untrustworthy that not getting a VPN is really not a viable choice to make. So chisleu doesn't get to choose whether to use a VPN or not.
But, with telegram, I don't see a way to message people on FB messenger. so that means, I'll need to get them to switch: tough sell.
One of the main use cases of Bitcoin is becoming a store of value. For that use case, transaction fees matter a lot less. If you want to store/move millions of dollars and protect them against inflation, those fees don't matter. Gold, also a store of value, has high transaction fees as well.
Other than typing, the general concept is not novel and predates spark/hadoop by 15-16 years or so (1995):

"We describe a distributed implementation of Scheme that permits efficient transmission of higher-order objects such as closures and continuations. The integration of distributed communication facilities within a higher-order programming language engenders a number of new abstractions and paradigms for distributed computing. Among these are user-specified load-balancing and migration policies for threads, incrementally linked distributed computations, and parameterized client-server applications. To our knowledge, this is the first distributed dialect of Scheme (or a related language) that addresses lightweight communication abstractions for higher-order objects."

Higher-order distributed objects
Full Text:	PDFPDF Get this ArticleGet this Article
Authors:	Henry Cejtin	NEC Research Institute, Princeton, NJ
Suresh Jagannathan	NEC Research Institute, Princeton, NJ
Richard Kelsey	NEC Research Institute, Princeton, NJ
Published in:
· Journal
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) TOPLAS Homepage archive
Volume 17 Issue 5, Sept. 1995
Pages 704-739

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=213986
This works - thanks for that!
This is also intended to be a simple portfolio that your grandma can operate.
Panopticlick: Research project to uncover the techniques of online trackers
When will 'have fewer children' become a socially acceptable answer to this question?
This isn’t very helpful (yet), but I know of one that’s about to be released in beta. If you’d like to be notified when it’s available, shoot me an email via contact info in my profile.
Not to use Siri.

Not to unlock for my kids in the back to play music.
> And how, exactly, does one embark upon an endeavor

By using the money earned from your career to fund ventures. A stable career should provide you with money to build wealth. However, simply working a 9-5 everyday will not provide wealth as the rules implies. It provides money, not wealth. There is a difference
You can see examples here: http://fable.io/repl
The Agua Fria river flows about half a mile away from the site. Although it's rarely above ground, the subsurface flow is the third-largest in the state, and there aren't very many people upstream. Arcosanti has a well and gets all its water from there.

Interestingly, the area is dotted with the ruins of numerous large Hohokam settlements; it's obvious that the population was much greater about 600 years ago than it is today. The Hohokam built some pretty sophisticated aqueducts, one of which is located on the Arcosanti property, which brought water up from the river to the settlements on top of the mesa. At the time, it seems that the rainfall pattern was dominated by small but frequent winter storms, resulting in almost year-round surface flow. But a change in the climate about 600 years ago switched the rainfall pattern monsoon-type: dry in the winter, and flash floods in the summer. The Hohokam aqueduct system couldn't cope with this, and their civilisation collapsed. So it's definitely a point worth being concerned about in that environment.

Arcosanti, however, is fine.
cmrx64 addressed the validation well. I'll add that there's formal specification tools for requirements (the What) such as Software Cost Reduction and Abstract, State Machines that have helped there. The trick on those is they help be precise about the environment, inputs, and outputs in a way human reviewers can understand. So, the reviewers think on and discuss stuff with their thoughts shared to others in English and the formalism to spot the problems or even improvement opportunities. The main gotcha there is ensuring English and formal specs don't diverge.

Far as verified stacks, the throwaway linked the basic concept but here's two works (old and new) on verified provers so you can see it in action:

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/flit.pdf

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jared/milawa/Web/

The former was early work by Appel et al on getting the TCB of provers down to a few thousand lines of code. The other uses composable logics and small implementation that itself uses the verified tooling of Myreen et al whose research covers a lot of angles:

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mom22/research.html

Most of their work is done in Isabelle/HOL which HOL/Light is aiming to verify in a lightweight way. The idea being you just have to trust the code of the kernel (hundreds to thousands of lines) that checks proof terms and the specs that are fed into them. They're doing everything they can in the proof assistants so the minimal checkers will be able to confirm the operations.
Tried it, didn't really like the syntax but Cartography has some performance problems so at the moment I'm back to hand rolled wrappers that are somewhat leaky but a lot less verbose and more readable:

Constraint.space(imageView, .horizontally, to: textView, distance: 8)

I can imagine going back to SnapKit though. It really did what it should do.
> Your ownership of a website is just as artificial

When you bought and paid for the server, and you're the only one who has administrative access to it, that's not at all artificial. That's a simple question of who created it and who controls it.

The natural state of affairs is for anyone who has bits to be able to process and copy those bits. Any restrictions on that, whether in the form of copyright or data-collection laws, are necessarily artificial. That doesn't make those restrictions wrong; for instance, I think it's entirely appropriate and likely uncontroversial to prohibit any public disclosure of people's physical location (e.g. home address or current GPS location), for safety reasons. I'm simply arguing that any such restrictions are artificially constructed, so we should talk about which restrictions are necessary and reasonable.

By contrast, a framing that treats data about someone as somehow "belonging" to them implies restrictions on basic things like the ability to communicate with others. (At the most basic level, you'd be talking about telling another person some personal information about you and expecting your "please don't share that information" to have some force of law; that's a restriction on that person's natural ability to communicate any knowledge they have.) Such a framing flips the polarity around from "which restrictions are necessary to protect people" to "which limited rights are granted over that data in order to accomplish things", and I think that's a fundamentally broken approach.

> Serfs use tenures and draw value from them and give loyalty to them.

Castles and towns in the middle ages got rather poor Internet service, and changing loyalties tended to be frowned upon, to say the least. Your continuous attempts to reframe things in those terms are not welcome. What changes, precisely, do you want to see? If you want to talk about regulations on the collection and use of data, let's talk about those. I'm not going to spend time trying to map that into some arbitrary and intentionally provocative analogy about "serfs", any more than I'm going to attempt to map websites to analogous models of cars or gothic architectural styles.

> But you expect visitors to your website to swear some of their data to you in exchange for the info on your site.

I'm ignoring the charged term "swear", here. I expect that they voluntarily provide data they're willing to provide in exchange for things they see value in that use that data, yes. For instance, they might provide information on what things they like or dislike, or make connections with other users, or at a lower level, their browser may make a series of requests with a given order, timing, and parameters.
Tried the new beta: it lost all my configured networks, and I had to re-add them all. Otherwise, it seems _way_ faster than the old one, and definitely an upgrade.
Really? I'll give it a try. Thanks.
There's a debate to be had on that point, I guess.

The normal behavior of "share sends the precise page I am currently viewing" has the advantage that you know what you're sending, whereas trusting the website's rel="canonical" opens up some potential confusion. (And, I guess, sneaky attack vectors, though someone who wanted to exploit that could do so easily enough via JS redirects on non-referer visits anyway.)

The Google Amp people certainly think that's the right way to do it, as we can see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085159

EDIT: Actually, I'm seeing some claims that iOS Safari is just generically doing share-is-rel-canonical now. I haven't tested it personally, but...
A lot of the problem is pubs not paying the higher rate sky wants for pubs to show football - that's what a lot of prosecutions are.
Its the gift of the republican party and the american media.

Man I remember back in the day when they decided to tell their base that this was all a conspiracy - I watched with naive outrage "How could you lie to your people like that!".

But no. They did it, and everyone else barely cared.

Remember that For decades people couldn't be bothered to recycle, or save water. They still barely care.

And then you have people - rich and able to employ talented people, who will spread FUD for their bottom line.

Don't be hard on your country men. They got lied to by the better liars in the world. They were cut from facts, they were given enterntainment instead of news, and cranks were brought onto the same level as scientists.

They never had a chance.

To jog everyones memmories - scientists would never engage with cranks - it gave them too much credibility.

But then a certain news channel started giving them a platform, and the trappings of credibility, till finally in an attempt to reason with the public, scientists came onto this network to argue the facts.

In classic fashion, it was a trap. There was never an actual debate, it was a circus - a spectacle for viewers to see the ivory tower intellectuals trip up on simple questions.

And the audience, presented with this farce, obviously saw what they were nudged to see.

Now after that much effort has been expended to keep things from you, and to "teach the controversy" it is also linked to identity.

Thats how we've reached where we are today.
The areas themselves however are luxuries, you do not require access to a social network or internet search to live your life. And no, Google isn't the only option for search, nor Facebook the only option for social networks. There is no justification for regulating these companies that isn't infringing on these companies rights to do business. You do not have a right to their services, their services are not something people require.
Which Chinese sites other than Alibaba?
I disagree with "with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity". With few exceptions, the truly powerful now have both privacy and immunity. Both, because of their power. But I'm not talking about current systems.

I believe that the powerful ought to have neither privacy nor immunity. That ought to be the trade-off for having substantive power. There's the old adage about power coming with responsibility. So I'm rather expanding on the basis for responsibility.