skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
While there are ways to compromise CA's (e.g. like you say, by nation-states for their intelligence goals), it is important to think about the appropriate risk profile.

For a NatWest customer accessing their internetbank, the expected, quite frequently observed risk comes from organized phishing teams pulling off mass semi-automated scams. For an attacker that, getting a certificate signed by a fake CA is unrealistic, and the concerns that you list aren't going to change anything since they're not going to do that anyway. On the other hand, getting a misleading certificate signed by a real CA and passing it off as the real thing is entirely feasible by this type of attacker, so fixing that is important.

Nation-state hacking, censorship and advanced persistent threats aren't what's causing the most damage/problems to most people on the internet right now, the multitude of random criminals is the largest issue. If you have to worry about a CA "compromised by nation-states through legal coercion", then this by itself means that you have a very different risk profile than pretty much everyone else; and the risk-reducing activities that make sense for you shouldn't be expected to be relevant for others and vice versa.
There is no need for tight coupling or to expose an Iqueryable.

You can write your repository with a method signature like this....

Find(<Expression<Func<Employee,bool>> query)
{....}

With Employee being a regular old undecorated POCO.

Then if you call it:

Find(e => e.id == 5)

The repository can be searching for data in a SQL Server database using Entity Framework or a Mongo database using the Mongo driver or even an in memory list for unit testing and the calling code doesn't care.

Yes the expression will be translated to the appropriate query (MongoQuery or SQL) without any coupling.

You return a List<Employee> not an IQueryable.
> ..they do very much represent you and all the other constituents within their region.

Perhaps a method for measuring this is needed. A way to evaluate a representative based on the merits they've shown.

It'd be amazing/nonsensical to believe that the entire system works on blind trust alone but it seems so, aside from journalists' reports.
Location: San Francisco, CA

Remote: Yes (With experience)

Willing to relocate: Not right now

Technologies: Java, Spark, AWS, Groovy/Grails, Python, Git,
MySQL, Impala

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rbagchi

I'm a Full-Stack / Big Data developer with 20+ years of experience. I've worked in startups and established technology companies, as well as finance and manufacturing companies.
Nothing in Snowden's docs says that the NSA was collecting and storing all the traffic it could find for later analysis, which was GGP's unsupported claim.
it-doesnt-matter-because-that-isnt-the-point.com
> So non-resource limited prices may remain low, but couldn't most of it be captured by those items that are limited?

Yes. And that's a very good point. For example, we might have the resources to feed the world, but we don't have the resources to feed the world meat 24/7. The price of meat would increase, so people would substitute other forms of food.

> Like rent or health care? People could move out of the cities to avoid the rent increases, but then cost of services / taxes per person rise in those areas.

Basic income allows people to move out of the cities because "proximity to jobs" is less of an incentive for them to live there. This causes the real estate prices in expensive cities like New York and San Francisco to drop as other areas become more desirable to live in.

People wouldn't be moving out of the cities to avoid rent increases. They'd be moving out of the cities because it becomes more affordable to live outside of the cities. That, in turn, would cause rent prices in the cities to decrease.

Health care prices are an issue that basic income doesn't solve. We need to address them regardless of whether we have a basic income.
Do you have any examples of "You might get sued for this"?
Ask HN: Design patterns for granting access to data scoped to blocks of time?
I'm struggling to come up with the right query terms for Google on this one.

Here's the basic business problem I'm trying to solve:

Let's say I have a car rental company. I rent cars one week at a time. I have reports for things like mileage over time periods for my renters to use.

Here's a scenario:

Customer 1 rents Car 1 for 1 week, drives 100 miles. Customer 2 then rents Car 1 for 1 week, drives 200 miles. Customer 1 rents Car 1 again for a week, and another 100 miles.

In my mileage report, I want to give Customer 1 access to the mileage accrued in by Car 1, but only for the blocks of time that they were the renters of the Car (so week 1 and week 3). Likewise, Customer 2 should only be able to access their block of time of rental (week 3).

Setting the UX concerns aside of chunks of missing data in a report, are there any established patterns out there for this type of query situation?
Walmart workers can request to get paid earlier on special app
HTTPS means more than just encryption. There is also authentication and integrity guarantees in SSL.
The dollar just ledges itself, since it's not backed by gold anymore. Most dollars are just entries in a database somewhere (and I would argue that paper dollars are really a distributed kind of ledger too).

Some people claim the dollar has value because the government accepts it for taxes, but the IMF's SDRs function as currency (within an exclusive population), aren't backed by anything, aren't accepted for taxes by anyone, and are worth $300 billion.
How does it give you more compile time type checking than C# with Linq?
They made the silly mistake of expecting people to be smart enough not to put random letters in words. Or didn't account for various reading disabilities.
This may in fact be because Google lets advertisers set a totally different URL than the one that they actually direct you to, so that advertisers can implement various tracking schemes.

This is also exploited by malicious actors to occasionally buy out fake ads for amazon.com or bestbuy.com (or even, hilariously, youtube.com) which actually direct you to support scam websites claiming your computer is infected.

Google seems to have no desire to correct this by making their advertisements show you the actual URL are you going to be directed to.

Verify that any link you click on is not an ad. Always look for the first native result. The policies permitted around ads make them simply a security risk to click on.
Reminiscent of Amex's password policy (at least what it was a few years ago): can't use punctuation in your password, because those keys are less frequently used, and using them frequently in passwords will cause visible wear on the keys, indicating to an attacker with physical access to your keyboard which punctuation characters are in your password. Trying so hard, but failing so badly.
I agree. There is no technical reason behind this sort of bollocks.

One day S&M will catch up and have a fit at the fragmented "front face" - quite right too. To be honest the board should also give a shit about their org's outward appearance.

Bit of a fail all 'round, really.
Perhaps the reverse would be better. If a site doesn't use HTTPS, call it unsecured.
> With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do.

Can you expand on that?
I don't really get his point, yes if we had more competition then prices would go down, but I don't quite get his argument for how removing net neutrality improves competition. Under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to discriminate between high bandwidth and low bandwidth users, but I don't understand how removing net neutrality improves ISP competition. You could have smaller ISPs throttle video data as to be faster for all the other users but isn't the cost of this improvement that users have to pay for video?

Also it seems that ISPs by nature seem better suited to monopolies than competition, like the grid or utilities. Not saying that natural monopolies don't have their own problems but I don't understand why it's not less efficient to have the network broken up into multiple sections owned by multiple people.

Could someone help clarify?
That's blatantly false.

They're doubling the standard deduction, which will cut taxes for the majority of all middle-class tax payers. Most of the middle class pays no or little in the way of net income taxes as it is, with 85%-90% of all income taxes being paid by the top 20% income bracket. The tax cuts the middle class will receive, will drive their net income taxes that much closer to zero.

85% of all the value of the SALT / local income tax deduction goes to people making over $100,000 per year.

97% of all home owners own homes worth less than the new proposed cap on mortgage interest deduction.

Both of those tax increases will almost exclusively hit well-off people.
Right--I was just responding to the parent's post to the grandparent's comparison to personal debt.
It can only be enforced if it is reported to the police and they gather evidence in a timely manner. Like any other crime.

If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.
Fast INT8 Inference for Autonomous Vehicles
Or stop blaming altogether and face the problem. I think it lies with the idea that knowledge must be somehow justified (as if this were possible without infinite regress). Which leads to an obsession with citations, footnotes, and so on.
Recess Labs: A Pre-Idea Incubator
Stored Procedures -- oh $diety no. You can't unit test them, they are harder to rollback than code, more difficult to deploy.
We also need to consider that content creators might crave an audience just as much or more than the donations.
You make some good points. I'm not following the government spending portion very well but thank you.

Regarding the labor substitution:

a) Would you agree productivity per labor hour must go up under UBI to be successful? Sam believes this will come through automation / AI.

b) Actual labor hours will go down and wages up, due to decreased incentives to work.

Unless A outpaces B, productivity will decline. If it does outpace B, wages or taxes must capture all of the increase or inequality rises quickly as fewer "working" people are capturing the rewards. These wage/tax increases will then slow the growth.

I guess I don't see how UBI wouldn't decrease the labor participation rate, and then how a low participation rate economy would grow faster than a high rate one.
Literally have not seen a dollar from them. I get a few dollars every month passively from amazon affiliate links
Thanks for sharing! I love the last paragraph a lot.
That's effectively what this article does.
This. I run a small non-profit. We would love to be hyper-transparent, but there are three of us working full time just to do the work that donors are supporting. We'd need to spend a lot of time and effort to release and contextualize all of that information, make sure it's current, and respond to the inevitable feedback and conversation that would be generated from releasing that information. Everything that sounds like it would be quick and easy, well, isn't.
You need to get to global DNS to get a valid cert. When certificate transparency logs become mandatory, that case will be detectable though not preventable.
> People have even made up rationalizations about fictional concepts such as "historical purity".

The idea behind not rewriting history is not to gain some kind of academic pleasure from purity. It's to make sure that the commits being committed are actually the same ones that you actually wrote and (hopefully) found to be working, so that when a bug makes you refer to the commit later, you (a) don't start scratching your head as to why it didn't do what you thought you saw it do yesterday, and (b) can actually refer to it to figure out what the correct code should've looked like.

If you don't see what I mean, here's an example. Say you have

foo():
foo1()
foo2()
foo4()
foo5()

and you turned it into this:

foo():
foo1()
foo2()
foo4()
foo5()
foo6()

Now now if someone has in the meantime done this:

foo():
foo1()
foo2()
if (!foo3()): return 0
foo4()
foo5()

then after a rebase you will end up with

foo():
foo1()
foo2()
if (!foo3()): return 0
foo4()
foo5()
foo6()

which is not code that you ever had, and which is likely to fail because your assumption that foo6() will always be hit will no longer be valid.

With a rebase, not only will this be confusing when you look back and make you blame the wrong person or lead you in the wrong direction, but it will also remove the option of rolling back to the latest of either of the two branches that you combined. You'll only be able to revert to the "known-good" branch that was rebased onto, not the one that was rebased.

Oh, and did I mention you very likely just lost the working (pre-rebase) version of your code entirely? Have fun digging it out of your reflog if you notice it quickly enough, and good luck finding a copy if you do so too late. You'll have probably deleted the branch by now, and chances are nobody else will have a copy lying around for no reason either. After some period of time you'll have no idea what the working code looked like, because the only version you have is the one that already incorporated the branch you rebased onto.
How would you avoid tax by buying horses or paintings?
It's Simplygon and not simplygone. I would suggest you make a written note reminding that you sometimes misread words. And keep it near screen/phone.
we initially let people do that, but they started uploading much worse photos, group photos etc. – the selfies help consistency. glad you liked it :)
https://www.charitynavigator.org/

It's a good place to start.
we'll make it better. matter of time + data. right now it works for some people, but not for others – just tough to get really good results because of how complex human facial perception is.

thanks for your feedback!
Give me a fucking break. The "traditional financial world" processes tens if not hundreds of thousands of transactions per second worldwide. Bitcoin processes no more than 4 per second. On a per-transaction basis, you could be insane to argue that Bitcoin is anything other than an environmental disaster.

Worse, Bitcoin's energy consumption scales based on the price of bitcoin, not on transaction volume. The more USD each bitcoin is worth, the more miners will spend on energy to get that sweet, sweet block reward.

So it isn't a "meme" and Bitcoin's proponents would do well to concede that "yeah, bitcoin pisses away a lot of electricity--sorry about that...".
Pepe being somehow this banner of the alt-right is fucking weird.
I was absolutely convinced by the title that this would be a link to a research blog post about an analysis of hair motion at metal shows.
Does anyone know people who are absurdly wealthy in BTC but only average (i.e software eng)?

What's their game plan ?
"39 senators" - total fail as an appeal to authority
Sure, but you should NEVER use a domain that isn’t delegated to you or explicitly reserved by the IANA for local purposes. Plenty of people used .int as well which is now a gTLD, you can’t complain about a name you don’t own breaking down the line.
The Larsen C ice shelf break has sparked groundbreaking research
Facebook plans to stop paying publishers to make news feed videos
SSL certs are based primarily on domainname registrations.

Why not check the domainname registration first? See below.

But the author is not highlighting HTTPS "validation".

He is highlighting HTTPS encryption. Protection against tampering with traffic.

Domain Name: nwolb.com
Registry Domain ID: 9074606_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.corporatedomains.com
Registrar URL: www.cscprotectsbrands.com
Updated Date: 2017-09-15T14:16:24Z
Creation Date: 1999-08-13T15:18:25Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-08-13T15:18:12Z
Registrar: CSC CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 299
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: domainabuse@cscglobal.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8887802723
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Manager
Registrant Organization: National Westminster Bank plc
Registrant Street: 135 Bishopsgate
Registrant City: London
Registrant State/Province: ENG
Registrant Postal Code: EC2M 3UR
Registrant Country: GB
Registrant Phone: +44.1316260002
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +44.1315239568
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: domains@rbs.co.uk
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Domain Name Manager
Admin Organization: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc
Admin Street: Global Network Services
Admin City: Edinburgh
Admin State/Province: SCT
Admin Postal Code: EH12 1HQ
Admin Country: GB
Admin Phone: +44.1316260002
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +44.1315239568
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: domains@rbs.co.uk
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: DNS Administrator
Tech Organization: CSC Corporate Domains, Inc.
Tech Street: 251 Little Falls Drive
Tech City: Wilmington
Tech State/Province: DE
Tech Postal Code: 19808
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.3026365400
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.302636545
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: dns-admin@cscglobal.com
Name Server: dns1.cscdns.net
Name Server: dns2.cscdns.net
DNSSEC: unsigned
I just installed and tried it:

- very easy to install and use
- took a pic (I am not that good looking) and my emoji looks great!
- I sent it to a couple of friends who liked it
Super Smash Bros. Melee: An “Untouchable” Agent
I know it's spelled Simplygon but it is pronounced the same way. If you said "Simplygon" to someone, they would probably think you'd said simply gone.
Banks also have money, I think that helps a bit...
“It’s unclear what Haim’s current role is with DingIt, as he opened but did not reply to two emails from BuzzFeed News. Visser opened but did not reply to an email.”

I find it odd that they would report on “opens”. Particularly in an article about how tracking / verification technology is so easily duped.
Japanese User Experience (2014)
You need to ask how are options etc taxed and are there any preference shares or liquidation preferences
I don't understand why this .37 applies to every transaction. Wouldn't it make sense to charge the overhead once a month, with the actual dollar(s) being distributed as the user wishes? They should use the power of their platform (obviously nearing or having passed critical mass) to make it easier for prolific supporters while also maximising their paetron's income.

I think they had good intentions, but got greedy and lost sight of their overall goal
They did send 60 bitcoins to watsi's adress, so it seems pretty legit

[1] https://watsi.org/faq#does-watsi-accept-bitcoin-donations

[2] https://blockchain.info/tx/d290acbfa7c619ad4215537ae83bfe165...
> All it takes to educate is to structure a game such that the lessons being learned are useful in the real world.

This!

There's a game my 7 year old couldn't put down until he finished it. It teaches the concepts of basic Euclidean geometry. There are similar ones for algebra and programming that is a little bit beyond him now, but I'll try him on them again in a few months/year.

He also has made these contraptions with random materials. A hammock out of a bit of surplus netting, for instance. I'm pretty sure hours of Minecraft helped with the desire to create things.

Now I do need to find a gamification of basic logic and critical thinking...
"If someone is messing with traffic then they can modify non-secure requests. Yeah?"

Yeah, but what does "messing with traffic" mean exactly?

Does it mean sniffing?

If it does not mean sniffing then please stop reading here.

-------------------

Assuming the user is using DNS over UDP, as most are, what if "someone" who is sniffing the network modifies one of DNS packets destined for the user?

Assume HTTPS and DNSSEC, just for fun.

Will the user be able to reach the website and log in?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

What do you think?
It should be the law because it is the law? I don’t think that works.

And as for the Irish arrangement, I think it’s a good demonstration on why having a corporate tax at all is more trouble than it’s worth. It’s better to just get rid of it and make up the shortfall in capital gains and income taxes.
You didn't click on a search result, you clicked on an advertisement.
Seems like a good idea. Many online services (like PayPal/Facebook/Craigslist) prohibit firearm and accessory sales, so it's already much more difficult to do business in this area online.
Are you forgetting the 30%+ in taxes not to mention living expenses?
Because it's a different brand of bullshit, that's closer to reality.
Whereas today capital is considered to be mainly money

No.

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp
Kelnos was correct, the service that 8.8.8.8 provides is DNS, hence the relevance when talking about 8.8.8.8 being anycasted.
In a previous discussion, user craftyguy said "The NRA would be all behind this the first time someone reports a 'suboptimal experience' when trying to access their site to become a member, or order ammo from some random M&P gun shop."

That's certainly possible. But they might also try to get laws passed that just benefited their own interests. Like forcing traffic to any gun-related site to be given high priority based on a convoluted reading of the second amendment concluding that doing otherwise would be a restriction of gun rights. I don't see the NRA being generally a friend of free and accessible information. They have, for instance, lobbied to prevent epidemiological research into gun violence.
It's not at all accurate, that they have almost no say in their own laws and regulations.

They set the majority of their own tax laws for one example (including sales and income taxes), and don't pay federal income taxes. They do pay into Social Security and Medicare, the benefits of which they can claim back later.

They set the majority of all criminal laws for themselves.

They have their own constitution.

They're free to set all sorts of laws how they see fit, so far as it doesn't contradict, for example, the US Bill of Rights. Their ability to set laws is greater than that of the 50 states, meaning they have a wide field to work with.
Not even predicated on HTTPS; owning more domains helps combat some obvious forms of fraud. Though, really, I agree that HTTPS is more important.
I really wish that they hadn't decided on having moving images behind the text you are supposed to be reading.
Successful entrepreneurs aren't usually on welfare, they come from great backgrounds (hi Sam, Mark, Bill, Donald...).
> The mantra on HN is that ideas matter and that HN wants to deemphasize names and avoid promoting pieces being posted merely because they are about some celebrity. I think these articles fail that test.

I disagree. Whatever you think about the quality of his arguments, the fact that the president of Y Combinator is writing about UBI makes it worth discussing for those who care about the topic, because he has significantly more leverage to affect things than most other people writing about it. Similarly, I'd be more interested in reading a poorly conceived piece on nuclear war written by Donald Trump than a brilliantly-crafted article from my nephew.
In addition to the other response, another example is ethereum's ability to offer smart contracts, which is not possible with bitcoin. Transaction rate limits and power consumption also are more efficiently handled.

They're different, which is why I used the term arguable--there's no clear reason afaik that bitcoin should be so valued relative to others, but I could be wrong.
The Voyager Golden Record