skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First off, I hope you realize that in the current paper systems that your "union boss" could literally walk down to the voting station themselves and give them your name & birthday and just submit votes on your behalf without needing to "coerce" or "buy" any votes.

Regardless, I said that it was dependent on the implementation. If I am able to change my votes at a later date, then who cares if my union boss can pull me into his office and force me to vote a certain way? I'll just go in that evening and issue a corrective vote and be issued a new "view key" associated with that transaction and my boss would be none the wiser.

Or you could have a system where the blockchain isn't public, but rather it's only accessible by a few designated government machines. Then for auditing purposes if you want to verify your vote, you go into a facility (no electronics [besides your identification] allowed) with your "view key" and prove your identity (biometrics, smart card) and then you're able to then receive assurance that your vote was recorded as expected by viewing the transaction from one of the government machines.

Then your union boss doesn't have the ability to check your votes.

You know what I love though - people who make all discussions black and white and don't consider the large spectrum of possibilities.
> You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no idea what I'm talking about in this specific niche either... but does it normally go over well when you start a conversation that way?
If you agree, this may mean no investor will be serious with you after that (you've shown your internals to lots of other people). Use that as an excuse to say no.
What's your pitch? What do you want to work on?
It's pretty clever.

Whenever you make a transaction in bitcoin, you point to the previous balance you have from a previous transaction, then you say how much you are sending to what address.

The "fee" is the difference between the amounts.

So if I have 1 Bitcoin, and I send .9 to you, the fee is .1

If you want to make sure you keep some Bitcoin, you just send it to yourself.

So 1 have one, and I send .1 to you, and .8 back to me, the fee is .1

Then when a miner mines a block, any unspent money is now theirs, and they claim it via the address they liked for.
Thank you! Very nice.

Your comment made me do a quick Google for "Awesome Compilers"

Sure enough: https://github.com/aalhour/awesome-compilers

(I didn't check if the links posted here are in the awesome-compilers repo though.)

Edit: I also want to thank OP for continuing part 2. I didn't read part 1 completely because I figured it had a chance to be an abandoned blog post series. Keep it up OP!
only if you accept them.

many farmers dont.

also: these are not distributed evenly (see also agribusiness)
I've seen huge enterprise customers ask similar things in the past. Especially with startups, they know that if they decide to steal your algorithm and replicate it, you will never be able to afford to sue them. I've seen a number of enterprises where they had a team large enough that they could throw whatever resources it took to build your solution and once they had some ideas how it worked, then they were off to the races.

It could also be a bluff to see how far they can push you. Enterprises love to ask for ridiculous things to see if they can get it. I once worked for a fairly large retailer ($10b/yr) that wanted to put into a contract with Microsoft that they could have access to the Windows and SQL Server source code.
How do u like to conduct securitication of your favorite celebrity?
Apple sometimes distributes separate security updates, depending on the severity of the issue.
This is just politics.

Find a way to say "yes", which satisfies their need to hear you say "yes", but your "yes" conditions mean they need to spend money (which they won't want to do), and further conditions, even if they do, as other commenters have suggested, make the process dysfunctional.

Watch our politicians in government handle any issue. They are masters of saying "yes" and delivering "no", which makes people feel like they got "yes".
my .02 from having been CTO at a SaaS analytics company for a long time: "we want to see how your algorithms made their decisions."

that's great product feedback. and a problem you need to solve. You shouldn't solve it by handing out your source code.
There is no arbitrary time length requirement for security. There are standard tests (like avalanche) all of which Curl-P passed. They passed all the standard security requirements before deploying the prototype, and had a backup plan of deploying keccak should a hint of any possible exploit arise.

Curl-P is based on a well-studied sponge construction, so it’s not an especially risky move to deploy it in their system after it passed all initial security requirements.

Curl-P also has the advantage of being extremely simple. This makes it easier to vet as the analysis can be done more thoroughly, as it’s not obscured through complex internal mechanisms.

It does require new tools to study (as it’s ternary) so there is bound to be some delay to extremely thorough production readiness. However, saying it is not close to being ready is false (unless we must put an arbitrary year requirement on it as you seem to be keen on).
I expanded on this in greater detail in one of my other comments and omitted to mention it again here, sorry. In addition to forcing a close vote by whatever means, you then attack the integrity of the ballot-counting process at the local level. This is easy to do in a a paper-based system because of the information asymmetry that exists from voting precincts; you don't know much about the integrity of the vote in any other precinct besides your own, and likely not even in that unless you're really interested.

On the other hand, you know a lot about the general integrity of electronic transactions because you probably use a credit or debit card frequently and in many different places and contexts and it works predictably. So even though that system isn't that secure, enough people believe in it through repetition and general utility that it remains in place. Voting is infrequent and thus easier to get up conspiracy theories about.
The city slickers don't want to cut checks to a bunch of hicks and the rednecks don't want to give their money to the city slickers and neither wants the other telling them what to do but our tax system ensures that they can't stay out of each other's business.
> You can't know. For those who are saying it is obviously a bubble: If bitcoin "succeeds" and becomes widely used as money, then its value will grow a lot more, since there can only ever be 21 million bitcoins. It is inherently deflationary. One bitcoin is worth, roughly (and circularly) speaking, the total valuation of bitcoin divided by the number of coins. Another way of looking at it: imagine bitcoins become as widespread, and as desired, as USD. Now think about how many USD are in circulation compared to BTC.

This doesn't make sense. More precisely, your argument for why its value could grow more doesn't make sense. You're comparing incongruent units when you should be comparing per-unit value.

1 BTC is not an indivisible unit, it's just the most widely used unit. Similarly, we have $100 bills, $50 bills, etc despite $1 being the most widely used. We could also use pennies or nickels if the value of a single dollar far outstripped its ordinary utility for commerce.

The feedback loop you're suggesting would not occur because as the value of Bitcoin grew, each atomic slice of a Bitcoin would simply increase in utility as the new benchmark unit. With 100M satoshi per 1 Bitcoin, we're not in any danger of Bitcoin's valuation increasing just because there is a limited supply.
Well, we have a national ID here in my country that significantly reduces the bizarreness that is the U.S. system of not being able to verify who actually owes a debt.... (not that we don't have annoying debt collectors, but not in this scale and with those errors).

In my opinion, a national ID's benefits SIGNIFICANTLY outweigh their theoretical downsides (I mean, the NSA already exists). It makes my life easier (but I still end up developing systems for the U.S. and I have to assume they don't have IDs :P )
>The app, called PinMe, mines information already stored on smartphones that — unlike GPS — doesn’t require permission for access. When computed along with publicly available maps and weather reports, this data can help identify if a person is traveling by foot, car, train or airplane, and chart their route of travel.

First off it would have to get approved in order to operate in the App Store(s).

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think what they're doing is novel at all.
If there is an option for pull transactions, it will be abused.

Even if I push my money to you, you have my address that you can pull from later if you want.
It was once impossible to stream movies over the internet because modem technology was limited to 1200 bits per second.
Even band-aids like doubling capacity wouldn't help enough.

Technically. Impossible.
Totally thought this was going to be about an algorithm that tags videos of whales with text, and and how they noticed a pattern by looking at the tags.

Title would be better served by mentioning "handedness" in whales, but there was already a flurry of those last week, presumably on the same study.
Did you see the thread here literally yesterday about taxes becoming higher for upper-middle class earners in blue states? Why didn't they get asked why they don't want roads?

I feel like this comes up any time someone does something to avoid paying taxes, as if that necessarily means they want no government at all. They (the farmers) will see no appreciable difference whether they pay the tax or buy the tractor, so they choose the tractor. That doesn't mean they don't want roads.
> inefficient enterprise

only when competing against imports from defacto slaves in other countries..
you cannot take a photo

Obviously you can and people do even though they're not supposed to.
Eh...if you have a REST API for instance, If I'm an ardent user of your API I'd sure feel a hell of a lot better if you were testing at the REST layer. I'm sure your mocks for your internal helper classes are really swell, but being a dev It really doesn't make me believe the thing is actually working.

https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/628658648001048577
Yes.

In my opinion casinos take advantage of a loophole in human psychology to take money from people who can't afford it, so having anything to do with that is unethical.
Google has long been Apple's security division. Often I wonder if Apple has any security people at all. The last Safari update had 11 CVEs from Google. Most of Apple's updates credit one or more issues to Google, and often Apple credits OSS-Fuzz, which is also a Google project.
Yes, people absolutely use code generators with C. But they do this because of deficiencies in the language, and everyone basically agrees that C is the lowest common denominator in terms of languages -- it's portable assembly essentially.

Go missing generics except for built-in containers; and then not having anything but the bare minimum for those built-ins is a critical defect of the language. The fact that you can work around that defect doesn't make it any less of a defect.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15863587 and marked it off-topic.
This is all it is. I ask for explanations every week from vendors.

And everyone here is going on about them wanting to buy the company or acquire licenses to the code. It's just bizarre.
I meant "them" as a category (debt collectors) not "them" as a specific company. Your debt is trivially transferable; getting one company to stop is just engaging in a perverse game of whack-a-mole.
Here's a somewhat contrarian view - if what you are making is so good (or unique/special/non-trivial) that it is valuable to more than just one huge customer, then just because they are huge and you are seeing dollar signs, doesn't mean you should agree to their request without due consideration.

They may attempt to compete with you or re-implement what you do, but again - if what you did is so good and perhaps non-trivial to re-implement (an assumption), then you should consider the value of what you have above their immediate demands. They might not have to be your "only" customer.

If you are trying to build a business to last on your own, you must ask yourself, is this the kind of customer I want?

Of course, you should consider who the customer is and their mission/vision/values/actions, what your and their goals might be in this instance, how to accommodate their request (like the suggestions for code escrow, etc.) while protecting yourself (surely there are ways through a competent IP lawyer).

Sometimes the big customer can break (or make) your company. I think your course of action depends a lot on what you have and what you want.

That they are interested in you so seriously is probably a good sign, as much as it is something to be concerned about. Consider the value of your use case and what it might be to others as well.

This might be me being naive, but, if they will be good to work with, and a good customer to have, they will be willing to work with you fairly. Otherwise, be cautious and consider the calls for legal advice.
I have 6 weeks of vacation a year (2 years out of uni) and 240 days of paid (75% of normal pay) parental leave (480 days in total for both parents). How's your vacation and parental leave in comparison?
unlike the 'real products' us software developer types produce far exceeding the value of the houses, cars, food, etc. that we consume..
I think this is a signal that you're probably underpriced by a factor of 2X to 10X.

So this is a sales objection. With regards to that justification, I'd want to know a) who in the business is generating it and b) what they expect to feed your answer into.

Is this just somebody who wanted to sound smart in a meeting? Then they don't need your source code; they need ~5 nice PowerPoint slides and you're done. I'd be polite but firm in this case.

Is this e.g. a risk management officer? Then OK, that is a totally reasonable ask. It's going to cost you $20k and some legal wrangling regarding non-disclosure and non-competes, but we will give up to 2 team members of yours up to one business day of access to our code in a clean room on our hardware, under supervision by a technical leader, with appropriate rules of engagement regarding questions.

Is this a business unit head sniffing for new things to build? Then I will not automatically eject out of this conversation, but my price just had another zero added to it, at least.
It is so funny to read very decisive answers with no explanation and/or not mentioning if author has any real world experience dealing with this kind of deals and/or machine learning.
Networked resources have listeners. Listeners have ears. Ears have wax.

A unit test verifies that your Q-tip is made of cotton, and that the cotton is soft and small enough to fit inside an ear to a depth that will fetch wax. Another unit test might confirm that a swabbed substance is actually ear wax, by reporting the qualities of a verified sample of earwax, and maybe also a sample of candle wax as a true negative.

An integration test verifies whether you are allowed to swab a specific person's ear, that they still HAVE at least one ear (but check for both, YES. EVERY SINGLE TIME.), that the ear is healthy enough to tolerate a cotton swab, that the person will hold still, and wait for you to finish swabbing (and emergency procedures for what happens if they violently react to suddenly getting stung by a bee in the middle of being swabbed), and that the ear in fact HAS wax to swab, before swabbing.

One preliminary unit test tells you that you're not holding a knife. The integration tests do almost everything else. You need to authenticate (ask first, maybe this alone tells you they have ears... OR NOT), connect to the network resource (reach your arm out with Q-tip in hand, and approach the ear), start the transaction (apply pressure to someone else's ear), complete the transaction (extract a sample of ear wax), and check the response for your request (inspect the earwax specimen). One last unit test to make sure you got back wax, and not blood.

Sounds disgusting, right? It is. And you can keep a rubber ear in the cabinet, as a stub test target, sure. We all understand the textbook definition of the noun (earwax, integers, money).

Real ears still need to be cleaned.
Ah so there will now only be a reduced chance that your incriminating speech will be uploaded. That's OK then.
If these opinions were conventional/universal, then there would be no controversy. It wouldn't even be political. People wouldn't have made this much noise about something that was trite, like employee/payroll systems.
Predicting Stock Performance with Natural Language Deep Learning
Looks like we need some form of "block neutrality".
Data Scientists: You Are Software Engineers First
Never worked for an enterprise company before I take it.

Because nobody when they are dealing with a vendor is thinking about how to acquire them. They just want your product.
This is all thanks to prop 13. If prop 13 didn't exist, housing prices would be lower because people would sell and retire on their appreciated property value in an area with a lower cost of living and fewer jobs. As it stands, people who own houses in California feel like they can't sell because they are getting such a good deal on their property taxes. If prop 13 didn't exist, rents would be lower because people would be more likely to sell to developers who would then build more apartments. The phrase "pulling up the ladder behind you" comes to mind.
Right, but given that that's true today, what makes BTC a store of value?

Or should I be parsing the phrase to mean "It's not anything today, but in the long term, once the market cap is large enough, it'll be a store of value"?

(I'm not being snarky; I'm legitimately confused by what people mean by the phrase.)
> We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?

-- Ray Bradbury
Curious what made you look/compare ToS? I find it interesting you quickly identified the similarity.
I can't agree with this. In his example (Transactions), he assumes that there is perfect knowledge of the underlying data and perfect knowledge on the assumptions made by the teams in the corner cases of each module, which is not the case in practice.

Very very often, (one of the most common source of errors in programming large systems), two parts of a program are doing the "right" thing, within their assumption, but when combined together you erroneous results.

Unit tests will not help you find them, as they cover the "is this gear/part working", but not the whole machine itself, e.g. is the engine actually running well...

In my experience, higher level system tests have a much higher ROI and real work value then simple unit tests.

Unit tests just test for made up "hypothetical" simplistic scenarios, and usually are written by the same dev. that did the functionality, and they will not expose blind spots on the implementation, while higher level system/integration tests are more likely to test on real world scenarios.
Bitcoin is not meant to be used for small transactions. Bitcoin can scale indefinitely in terms of dollar value of daily transactions but it is limited when it comes to number of transactions.

I don't think that the lightning network will offer a solution. In engineering, problems are always better solved at the root. As clever as it might be, the lightning network is a bandaid patch on top of a suboptimal solution... There are many cryptocurrencies that scale better than Bitcoin in terms of number of transactions.
And in the ML space we laugh at you and goto the next vendor.

Because we paid for that model, it belongs to us. Just like how if I pay for an illustration I expect the PSDs.
The page you linked to says "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
> not technically difficult to address

While the concepts may not be difficult, the scale often is.

See the Milwaukee deep tunnel system, storing 521 million gallons in 28.5 miles of tunnel.

https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/wastewater-treatment/deep-tu...

But it does work: https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/06/12/murphys-law-the-remark...
The “benefit” of unit tests telling you exactly where the problem lies is not compelling. All tests should always be passing on master, therefore the problem lies in “git diff master.” If you can’t tell where the problem is that’s breaking an integration test, your changeset is too large or there are too many layers of indirection.

Approximately all of the bugs I encounter in real life would have been prevented by integration tests but not unit tests. Unfortunately my organization only believes in unit testing, so 95% of our test code mostly just exercises its own mocks.
Largest Crypto-Mining Exchange Was Hacked, Over $50M in Bitcoin Stolen
The transaction fees won't grow forever. Generally speaking, they just need to be high enough that miners can turn a profit. What that amount is, I don't know.

And the fact that there's a limited number of transactions that can be processed in a single block, and competition between miners to validate transactions as quickly as possible, complicates things.
I'm still holding on to my dogecoin, just in case... /s
What I wanted to make clear is that points 1 and 2 compound each other.

When there is healthy competition, businesses will consider fulfilling their customers' needs as the best way to increase profits.

When there is not healthy competition, businesses will be able to increase profits using methods that go against their customers' needs, because their customers have no alternative.

That is why we can't have monopolies.

But we do have monopolies, so we need a workaround: regulation.
Ask HN: How to keep your startup running if you cannot monetize from day 1?
I am trying to build a company whose strength lies in its user base i.e community driven. I cannot monetize it directly on per transaction basis like Ecommerce or Uber.

I have two major challenges.
1) First is how to keep it running when i am not generating any revenue?
2) Secondly, how to validate my idea and product-market-fit if your customers use the product for free.
No non-trivial design is ever perfect, and tests are meant to test where the empirical reality (implementation) diverges from the design (expectation). It isn't clear at all how these two things are related in the way suggested, much less to the extent that they can be considered unified under an (as yet undiscovered) abstraction.

Rather, I think the essay accidentally supports something else entirely: developers easily get distracted testing the wrong things and thinking about testing as being easier, more valuable, or less fallible than it is.
San Francisco also has the Front Yard Ambassador Program. This encourages homeowners to replace concrete in their front yard with plants. The City helps defray the costs. The goal of this program is to reduce runoff.

http://sfbos.org/supervisor-tang-front-yard-ambassadors-prog...
They should have speakers on the birds so every time they collide with a drone the speaker shouts "FALCON PUNCH!!!"
As someone who is looking for property to buy... I would not use landing pages like this. I want a fully-fledged search engine that I can filter to my requirements.

Have you talked to any realtors (your primary market?) about this?
Bamboo integrates with Bitbucket Server and has great deployment support. In many ways, we’re just catching up on the cloud side.

Do you use Bamboo? Anything you’d like to see improved in the deployment support there?