skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We change key size because what is secure in terms of key size is literally compute bound. Key strength changes because we predict when a key will /cease being secure/.

That said most of the demands made by DoJ aren't for reduced key size, they're for variations of key /escrow/: literally breaking the security model of crypto entirely.

So maybe I could be more specific: there is no such thing as an almost secure protocol.

The key (ha!) result of this recognition is that all secure protocols have been moving to some variant of ephemeral keys. Specifically to deal with the problem of all static keys eventually becoming insecure.
How I made 10% of my side project’s incomes with a bot written in 4 hours
Well it is more complex than it appears.

Extracting data from documents requires a solution which uses OCR but is a different product (e.g. ABBYY FlexiCapture).

This is most commonly referred to as zonal OCR and comes with the added functionality of handling multiple templates, defining zones/fields, specifying special rules for fields, verification process for manual inspection (e.g. triggered when the image receives a low confidence recognition score) etc. This is different and more complex than a product that does full page OCR (e.g. ABBYY Finereader).

Handwritten OCR is a whole different story. The products that do zonal OCR will fail to recognize handwritten text, unless it's in boxes (PDF forms). I'm working on a prototype that can handle handwritten text outside of boxes too.
Part of it was that I'm not very familiar with the internals of the challenges and I didn't know that `_acme-challenge` was the record name for the dns-01 challenge. (I probably could have put 2+2 together if I realized this much.)

Another part was that I've never read the dns rfc and honestly I've only ever spent enough time messing with dns until it worked. And I've never seen a CNAME for a record that's resolves to anything but A (or AAAA or another CNAME). So I suppose it was a combination of a failure of imagination, lack of knowledge, and lack of experience. Or maybe, "I dunno I never thought about it".

But now I know! CNAMEs work for all records regardless of type, forwarding the entire lookup elsewhere, which I guess is why they require no other records exist with that name. Pretty cool.

I suppose I could have learned that with a bit less incredulity but hey, it got me here in the end. I guess a link to the RFC might be relevant here [CNAME 1]. I'll probably look through it later, maybe there's some other cool features I didn't know about.

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034
Don't forget that the X years always come off the back end. If you'd speak to my 90 year old grandmother about the poignancy of life right now I think she might have a thing or two to teach you about how great it is at the end.

You've also chosen wine as the enemy here, I bet for any given person earth (including you) we could find something you could have done more of (or not done at all) to improve your lifespan. Very few people trade everything off for life expectancy, and those that do often have dreams of singularity or life extension as their only goal.
> You buy a $5 movie ticket and most of that money is going to actors, visual effects artists, and all the other names you see on the credits. You buy $5 worth of bitcoin and you have bought almost $5 worth of electricity.

So your defense effectively is if I buy $5 of food and eat it, well it is any lost any way so I should buy $5 of bitcoin instead? I am sorry but it is exactly this kind of flawed reasoning which ensures people don't take bitcoin seriously.
Socialist democracies are still capitalist.

Norway has more billionaires per capita than the US.
> In all these places, you should be able to hold up a ruler and have 1cm=1cm.

I don't necessarily agree, I guess. If all of the monitors are set up at the same viewing distance, then yes, 1cm=1cm if stuff is measure in arcdegrees. But if they're not — say one is a larger device that's typically viewed further away — then no, the absolute physical length of a displayed item should, again IMO, increase to compensate for the distance.

I think this is a better system than today's, which seem to be mostly a hodge-podge of bad assumptions that the screen's DPI is always X, and fiddling with UI zoom settings until something respectable comes out.

I am not saying that there aren't good use cases for a display device to output actual cm/in, however: for example, if I want to preview how a printed document will actually physically look, I absolutely think there should be an API to say, "No, I don't want to display this is arcdegrees, I want this thing to be absolute 8.5 in by 11 in." and then in that case, yes 1cm=1cm.

That is, it's contextual, but I think arcdegrees provide a better default for the majority of use cases.
Ask HN: Why aren't there startups to disrupt high interest credit cards?
Why isn't there a startup out there or different company to disrupt high interest credit cards? Surely a company can still make a ton of money on 3-5% APR?

What am I missing?
It's VERY clear what to do about. Change our diets and change our lifestyle. The problem is, "America you're fat" is as politically toxic as "Let's raise taxes." Add in Big Food and Big Pharma profits and we have most people believing we don't know what to do about.

We have the knowledge. What we lack is the will (and the leadership).
You can spend fractions of a Bitcoin, so it doesn't matter what the price of a full one is. ~15,000 satoshis (a satoshi is the lowest it can be split, 1/100,000,000 BTC) is currently equivalent to 1USD.
A single screenshot with no accompanying explanation? Is there a clearer indicaton of contempt for the readers?
Eh, file system I/O? Compared to Linux, Windows really sucks there. As does OS X.
My apologies if that came off too aggressively. It is a subject that I get emotional about due to events in my own life and the lives of my loved ones that were absolutely alcohol related.

Thinking back 10 years, I would have said exactly the same thing (about whisky or tobacco), so I see where you are coming from. I'm sure it seems hypocritical for me to be so anti-alcohol after my earlier behaviors. I think having kids made me open my eyes to it. I wasn't a heavy drinker by that time, but there were still a number of Sundays where "Daddy really feels sick today, baby. Is it okay if I just lay down and you watch a show?".

It's just no longer conducive to constructive living in my view now. To each their own, YMMV, etc.
I was referring him making the article title sound like is gospel, i also blame the need to have a click bait title to get people to read it
Aaron Hernandez suffered from most severe CTE ever found in a person his age
And the evaluator ("discriminator") uses the generated outputs to improve its discrimination.
If you do not provide concrete example of where it is imperative, I am sorry, I would have to respectfully assume, you have no clue.
It wouldn’t feel right to open the package.
We would expect the opposite to happen, no?
To defend this user's point, I think could be a case made for a key escrow that requires an unlock from different organizations. RSA solved this years ago. We could establish a key escrow that adds a key to your personal key. This extra key would allow unsealing in cases where it would be needed within the law.

The extra key could be set up so that it requires X out of Y keys. Each key could be owned by different organizations, like the state govt, FBI, Courts, Nonprofit oversight committees, citizens oversight of police, and such. This could provide a balance of security and privacy, and allow in extreme circumstances a forced break of encryption.

(Ideally, it would require many orgs that are normally in opposition to agree. It would not be "state govt", "FBI", "CIA" like the old Clipper Chip.)
So two things. You quoted three things, all 3 five words or less. At most that leaves 15 words across 3 paragraphs. Hardly worth drawing attention to.

Not that it really matters, because everything that was stated was pretty justified. It's curious that you take issue with my post or its tone, and not that out right dishonest response I was negating.

Looking at your posting history, and your continually false and misleading statements regarding all things geopolitical, I can only assume you're here to cause a stir. With all due respect.
This pertains to my business particularly, what if customer onboarding process takes a lot of effort for a Saas?
Is there already a budget for this kind of tools? Marketing? Sales? R&D budgets? etc. If there is - who makes a purchase decision and who will be the user? Try to find contact with these people, setup a meeting and talk to them to understand - how they are solving this problem today, what tools they are using? How much do they pay? What is the biggest problem with the current solution? etc.. - more you learn, more you validate your idea and partially market.

Try to have several such conversations. Then you can build a "sales" demo - it can be a presentation with slides, or it can be quick demo-prototype (it's possible to develop it in 1-2 weeks in some cases). Then you can setup a meeting with the most friendly potential customer from previous conversations and do the first demo run with them, then refine demo based on feedback and do it again
> Between 2005 and 2016, the most recent full year of data, the company saw an 83 percent decrease in the number of incidents that resulted in days away, work restrictions or job transfers – to an all-time low of 1.55 incidents per 100 full-time North American employees.

I find it incredibly impressive for a manufacturer to achieve something like this.
It seems you have concerns with the idea of trade or labor specializations having different labor prices.

So for your example you call out trench diggers, hardware engineers, assemblers, electrical engineers etc... Each of these groups is getting paid for their services based on market competition. As far as I know, a good portion of those are unionized and the rest are in competitive industries that supply multiple different partners. Eg. very few of those laborers work as direct employees of Facebook - they take relatively short term contracts to execute those tasks and then move on to other customers.

I'm not sure how you see equity being distributed in those cases such that it would be considered fair.

The "modern economic" argument is that the price they are being paid - arguably negotiated against other competitors is market clearing.
> Key strength changes because we predict when a key will /cease being secure/.

Yes, we use keys up the gradient of security that key size represents as attacks become more powerful. The reason we don't use the more secure keys in the first place isn't that 2048b keys weren't always more secure than 1024b keys -- it's just that we didn't (for most purposes) need to be that secure, and so we choose an appropriate spot on the gradient for our cost-benefit analysis.

Pretending that's not a gradient of security is simply dishonest.

> That said most of the demands made by DoJ aren't for reduced key size, they're for variations of key /escrow/: literally breaking the security model of crypto entirely.

That's missing the plot for the details: the DoJ wants a method by which they can break into digital safes in a manner similar to physical safes. Their proposal is key escrow, but that's partly because technologists didn't suggest a better way when the DoJ simply asked to get it done with little guidance. So they made a specific ask. And it sucks -- because they're not technologists. Everyone knows it, but the DoJ isn't inclined to let people flat out refuse.

Pretending that there aren't technical solutions with transparent ruses -- like there aren't gradients of security -- are how we got to lawyers demanding technical features.

I don't disagree with you that we should use secure protocols, I'm just saying we need to hold ourselves accountable for honest and strong arguments, not ruses.

The one you end on -- that using ephemeral keys is fundamentally a stronger algorithm that doesn't work well with long term taps -- is a strong argument. Much better than things like "there aren't security gradients" -- partly because they're actually true.
gonna guess just hard, but after the first 2 or 3 screens i just said fsck it. does it intentionally try to cut tiny bits of the edge off each 'correct' frame to get good training data?

i did try the audio too though and had no idea what it was saying.
We have 250 years of data from fast productivity increases since the industrial revolution started.

The empirical experience is very clearly the opposite!
That is an incredibly difficult title to parse if you are from a certain background. I spent about a minute trying to imagine how someone might have made a human/cow chimera, and what that might have to do with harmonics.

In my defense, I had read the following article about rat/human chimeras earlier today:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4867891/scientists-give-rats-c...
Sounds like a good use of ML. Buzzword detector with auto-remove.
Got it today. I have to say, faceid is pretty cool. The screen however is disappointment; the hue/color temperature changes significantly to be distracting with tiny changes to viewing angle.
Get Started on the Road to Become a Raging Success as a Writer in 500 Words
Yes and no.

I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.

Most people believe extra weight is natural, (socially) acceptable, and just a basic modern inconvenience. It's just not wise for established leaders to say "stop drinking soda or die young."

Not to get off topic but look at Obama and healthcare. He could have tied personal health to civic duty. Instead he let the healthcare system take the blame. "You're unhealthy and you're hurting all of us" just isn't a great campaign slogan.
I would suggest that in many cases the "data network effect" advantage of ML startups is overappreciated relative to the branding advantage they have. For example, DDG and others can, for the most part, match Google in quality of search, but almost no one will use them because of entrenched branding, this is especially true IMO in smaller ML vertical industries ideal for startups. e.g., if there is only room for one ML company that analyzes farm pipe leaks through camera, then branding and market dominance helps considerably there.

I may be wrong, I'm (mostly) a DL hardware guy, this is just my two cents :)
Point taken. I was too aggresive in my dismissal and you are absolutely correct that I have the same flaws as any human. Apologies if my tone seemed condescending. As I mentioned in my reply below, I have a lot of feels when it comes to booze.
Um? Let me use an example to explain what is happening here:

Me - Cryptocurrency markets are not mature that is why we have lot of arbitrage opportunity between exchanges.

You - Why do you think they're mature and perfect enough to worry about arbitrage opportunities?

So, let me repeat again - It is exactly because they are not mature there are issues. If they are mature, there is nothing to worry. And that is the sauce you are looking for.
And is an extremely common pattern at that.
We can also require that the hardware issuer (eg, Apple) stores an encrypted copy of the key (throwing away the key used to encrypt the original key), such that it costs $1M (or other amount) to break the encryption and reveal the key.

There's no reason it shouldn't require expense and physical breaking to gain entry, just because it's digital (and I think that this scheme gains legal protection because of such features).

By actually discussing it, instead of hiding behind lies like "there are no security gradients", we can talk about systems where it would require X amount of compute effort to break an encrypted key held in escrow for Y years at Z expense to reveal the key. (I was actually thinking about using a hash chain to timelock the key, since we have a pretty good idea of how hard it is to sequentially hash.)

I don't think most of us are against the government being able to see individual, targeted encrypted drives -- I think we object to the ability to transparently compromise all systems.
I had another comment, but in response to your Ed: comment:

key size is not a measure of security. It is a measure of how /long/ we intend the key to be secure.

More explicitly:
Key size does not exist of the gradient of protocol security.
We know how long a key takes to break given current technology and algorithms. We choose a key size to render the time to break infeasible against our prediction of state of the art some amount of time in the future. If there's a gradient, the gradient isn't "how secure it is", its "how long it will remain secure".

Hence any policy that endeavours to control the "strength" of encryption through controls over key length is /necessarily/ requiring an insecure key size.

It can be put this simply: How small must the key be to allow it to be "good enough" for the DoJ? Would they accept a continuous 5 years on a 10000 gpus? Noting of course that in 18-24 months that key size will now only require 2.5 years, then 1.25, 7 months, 3 months...

Of course I'm sure 5 years and millions of dollars will be "unreasonable", so it would need to take less time, and cost less.
Cubicles are better than open office and a lot simpler to implement than my fantasy micro-offices but they definitely are not a substitute for an office. That is why I would like to try to make really small offices tolerable like the ventilation and other ideas I mentioned.
Thanks for commenting! There isn't one yet unfortunately - but it's coming.
If they want to convince me to accept some kind of back door in my encryption, they have to propose a system where it can be shown that it cannot be abused by bad actors within my government, and where there are clearly stated public rules about when it can be used.

It is possible to design such a system, where the probability of abuse is arbitrarily low [1], but I have a hard time imagining the current DOJ proposing such a thing.

[1] key escrow with access controlled by a multilevel secret sharing system that requires consensus among a diverse international group of shareholders to release the key from escrow. The shareholder group is chosen so that it includes a mix of public and private entities in a variety of jurisdictions, including anonymous shareholders, so that no entity can acquire enough power or influence to force a key to be revealed.
This is why homeopaths and ghost hunters don't sweep every year. It's not an award to shame the recipient, it's to highlight unusual or befuddling, but legitimate, scientific research.
I mean it's based on established rule of law - which is codified with documentation and process.

That communal ownership doesn't have record keeping or otherwise would seem to be unnecessarily unbalanced towards those with family right. Isn't the idea of family right and inheritance something that people rail against in the states eg. eliminating things like inheritance tax etc... are very popular among some groups because "just because you were born into it doesn't mean you earned it."

Seems to be some cognitive dissonance here.
> Better for who though?

Everybody but the lawyers.

As much as I would like to protect native islanders and their lineage, I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to allow land to idle half in a strange state of title limbo. There are many countries in the Western Hemisphere (and even cities in the US) that are suffering for having poor property ownership recording or the claiming of ownership through inheritance. Haiti comes to mind, along with abandoned buildings in Detroit and Baltimore.
> trying to do it formally sounds inefficient and silly

Irrespective of how things sound, there is a reason every modern civilization develops a system for recording land ownership early on. Land disputes are historically nasty. Where records are non-existent, they get violent; where records are bad, they jam the courts. There are many systems varying aims; our American one is among the more flexible in the world.

Flipped around, if these ownership claims had been properly recorded a generation ago, the current fiasco wouldn't have happened. Better late than never.
Also, I’ve had slow moving cards get stuck...

https://imgur.com/a/0trny
It's also not a socialist democracy.
Or use FaceTime?
Some thoughts (adding to staticautomatic's post):

1. There is no dataset/competition like ImageNet for OCR.

2. Most people/conferences/universities are going after natural images and "computer vision" problems. OCR is its own animal and while it shares some concepts with computer vision it's not the same thing.

3. A lot of IP, knowledge and talent locked up in a handful of very old companies doing this for a long time. ABBYY is for OCR what Google + Facebook are for deep learning (maybe more).

4. OCR is kind of a niche, a lot of knowledge is not available to many people outside of a few insiders (ABBYY/Nuance, universities, research labs, OCR conferences).
I'm sure Google uses it a lot internally (e.g. Google Street View numbers etc.).

5. The incumbents don't just do OCR. They do preprocessing (computer vision/image processing) + OCR + NLP.

6. Hard to find data. ABBYY Finereader supports 190 languages. Collecting this data is no easy task.

I'm probably missing other reasons as well, but this is just off the top of my head.

That being said, I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of progress in the OCR + deep learning space soon.
Interest rates aren't high for fun. They're high because credit card borrowing is unsecured and high risk. People default on credit card debt all the time, and they also pay it off slowly.
Gove Admits to Having No Idea About Impact of China Recycling Ban
No one came up with a better "solution" than escrow because there is not one.

I've spent years of my life working on making it so people don't have to risk their information whenever it touches a computer.

Key length is a measure of how long you want the key to be secure. Also note that we tried that once in the past: DES had a deliberately crippled key space. That was resulting in terrible security bugs only a few years ago.
I'm happy to discuss this in more detail - my contact details are in my profile - but the product I'm working is currently in public beta and we're venture funded.

We're taking a slightly different approach in that, in your example login form, we're using ML classifiers and some NLP techniques to pick the most likely candidate username and password fields, and if we get it wrong, you can correct us which then feeds into the training data.

We have free accounts if you'd like to try it out, at https://developer.unravel.io . It'd be great to see if the user experience from a developer's perspective is close to what you're imagining.
AFAIU asbestos is technically a legal/commercial classification that encompasses a few different types of minerals. In the U.S. the EPA sees them all as carcinogenic enough that it stopped encouraging comparative health research between the various types.

For fabrics and such, you'd most likely be getting chrysotile, or white asbestos.

The main problem with all of these minerals is that they are highly friable, meaning that they flake off easily when handled, and these flakes are what cause asbestosis and mesothelioma. My (limited) understanding is that the particle size for "unprocessed" asbestos is still small enough to be carcinogenic. Hopefully, a pulmonologist can weigh in and give a better answer.

Anyway, I've seen numbers before that Russia, China, Brazil and several other countries still produce a lot of asbestos and related products. You could probably pick something up from those places, but most developed countries heavily regulate this stuff, so you'd likely have a hard time importing the stuff without some really good reasons.

If you're interested, the site asbestos.com has a lot of good overiews on the industrial, legal and medical history that you can dig into.

Stay safe :/