skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wonder if "BitPay Card" will end up supporting BCH?
They get tons of ideas from China.
Isn't SGX not so secure ? [1]

Specifically this claim

"In a semi-synchronous attack, we extract 96% of an RSA private key from a single trace. We extract the full RSA private key in an automated attack from 11 traces within 5 minutes."

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/using_intels_...
No. Most of these are pretty mainstream moderate to conservative positions. Depending on how you measure it, roughly half the country believes at least some of the stuff on that list.

Perhaps yours is really more of a comment about the homogeneity of the company you keep than on the universality of their beliefs?
Imagine you were a character in a video game. Why would I want to pick you? What are your strengths, special moves, etc and how can that help with my playstyle? That's all I want to know as someone interviewing people. You wouldn't focus on Ryu as graduating from Kyoto Martial Arts academy, placing first in the uppercut tournament. Tell me what Ryu is good at. Tell me that you have a good hadoken that's better than other people's projectiles, and I can use you in sitautions where projectiles are useful.
You wont be fired in most parts of the world for saying that kind of stuff.
The wording in the article's first paragraph can almost be read as if the policy applied to all Tesla cars used commercially, but the actual announcement is more clear:

> This Policy applies to all Superchargers worldwide and all Tesla vehicles purchased, either new or used, whether from Tesla or a third party, after December 15, 2017.

https://www.tesla.com/about/legal?#supercharger-fair-use

I updated the title accordingly.
I appreciate that there's several different opinions across this thread, but this is the 3rd or so time you've posted this exact comment (and several others); it's verging on spam by now, to me.
> If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now

Anyone who says that is, frankly, unobservant.

We have government bail outs for people who live in areas that frequently flood due to things that have nothing to do with climate change, such as normal rain and hurricanes. Many of these areas flood almost predictably, yet we keep providing government support to keep people living there, or to help them move to someplace that floods less.

There is no way that something similar won't happen to people when climate change induced sea level rises starts making some coastal property unlivable.

Also, a good fraction of the population live in areas where there is a good chance that something will destroy their house over the next 30 or 40 years. Besides the aforementioned floods, there are earthquakes, wild fires, and tornadoes.

The only real difference between those and gradual sea level rise destroying your home is that with sea level rise afterwards you have to go live somewhere else instead of rebuilding where the old house was. No one claims that people who live in states that can have earthquakes or tornadoes do not really believe that earthquakes or tornadoes happen.
How can anybody actually support the current administration if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good?

anyone?
How is this related to the parent or OP?
Not his views, his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference.

He lost the confidence of the internationally focused diverse organization he was charged with leading due to that financial support.
Nice whataboutism.
I really like XKCD, but that strip really irked me. Similarly to Louis CK’s “You can’t tell me if I hurt.” quote.

Both had really quality work and clear thoughts and then the disingenuousness of these items made me rethink my own perception of them.
You want to know what I think is way, way scarier than self-censoring in SV?

Is that as a CULTURE we are self-censoring due to the Chilling Effect from learning that the NSA collects unfathomable dossiers on every citizens private browsing behavior.(1)

It is sad and hilarious that SV leaders - who have spawned & continue to lobby for anti-privacy technology in the name of data collection and personal information dealing to sell advertising are crying that they can't be honest with their peers.

If we want people to be more open and honest, to be open to broader views than their own how about start by fixing the fucking group-think algorithms that FB / Twitter / Goog are so fond of?

(1) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/27/nsa-surveil...
I think the greater concern are weaponized codes of conduct in an at-will employment environment. If you can’t say something without losing your job, you’re not free to say something.

You can take every effort to respect someone else, not allow any of your behavior to be construed as harassment, and still be out the door because someone objects to or is offended by what you’ve said.
3) Because "hate speech" has come to be a political tactic of censorship, just like "obscene speech"
You should actually read the multi-page article. And not the version hacked apart by tech "journalists" to remove the citations.
I agree, I just used lynx there as a stand in for all text based browsers, since it's the most well known, and easiest to get running.

I'm not sure I agree the web is getting more text-friendly.. it is getting more JSON friendly, mostly, but actually visiting web-pages where JS isn't required is becoming increasingly rare. I've yet to find a text/console browser that can actually run JS. (I know there have been some experiments, but none that actually work last I checked)..
> US is now extremely competitive and has become more competitive over the last twenty and fifty years.

I don't disagree. I was mainly trying to point out that competitiveness is also easy to manufacture, especially in the political arena.
True, but I listened to his podcast on the history of JS, and he was hired to put Scheme in the browser, but then management decided it needed to be something else, which turned into a compromise with Sun because they were wanting Java. And then there was a limited time to make it happen before Netscape shipped.

After that time, whenever Brendan wanted to fix things in the language, he couldn't, because you can't break the web for people already using things as they are. This happened several times.
> And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"?

Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say. If what you say is bad, you'll get mostly negative responses. If what you say is good, you'll get mostly positive. If you disagree with most of society, you can hang with your niche. If you give a shit about what society mostly agrees on, you get with the program.

Seems like right now we mostly agree "be considerate of one another." It's not much to argue against.

> How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss?

This isn't rocket science. Some ideas for you:

1. Ask a friend. "Am I an asshole for saying this?"

2. Think critically. "Am I an asshole for saying this?"

3. Own mistakes. "Shit sorry I was an asshole, please forgive me."

4. General education. You learn from history, interacting with other members of society 1:1, stories of perspectives beyond your own, etc.
What would you say to the reality that the private market has done almost all of the innovation in health care?
What else from that essay was grevious enough to fire him?
How is that better or different from Bitcoin users trusting CoinBase?
For better or worse, popular society has become a lot better at detecting dog whistles. "Diversity of thought is more important than diversity of skin color" is one of those dog whistles.

I don't find the discussion itself objectionable, but I also don't want to grant intellectual capital to anybody who is going to use a controversial topic in bad faith to control the discussion. I don't want to be used to legitimize more extreme views. Sometimes people don't bring these topics up in bad faith, but it's been my experience that they're the minority.

FWIW, I don't live in Silicon Valley or in CA.
Not really. If you think that way, you just move to Staten Island [1]

1: http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/election_day_20...
Not sure about California as a whole state, but NYC is liberal aside from Staten Island. And the rest of the state is red, aside from few cities.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
And here I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was the real threat to free speech.
If your set is not the same as everyone else's set, you risk being forked off. Trusted third party based schemes have a tendency toward centralization, making them less resilient than ones based on cryptoeconomic incentives. Inevitability it will mean TTP based ledgers will be permissioned, with the TTPs acting as gatekeepers, rather than p2p.

This isn't just theoretical either. Stellar has co-authored a paper arguing for regulations against anonymous cryptocurrencies:

http://www.lhoft.com/assets/uploads/images/WhitePaper_LHoFT_...

It's clear that it's positioning itself as a gatekeeper-based ledger that stays on the good side of regulatory agencies.
I'm on the fence about this, especially given that it's my livelihood.

Sure, I worked through the bad old days of writing `document.getElementById()` by hand, Scriptaculous vs MooTools, mountainous files of jQuery, Backbone vs Angular, and CoffeeScript when it was cool, but I can't deny that things aren't so bad nowadays.

Maybe I'm just naive.
There's a bunch listed for Firefox, give them a look. Not sure if they work with the new addon system, though. FB Purity, Kill FB Feed, etc.
I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I'm against banning words and not a fan of Trump.

Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words. The common theme in the rest of them is that they don't convey much useful information but have a strong emotional charge.

You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you're seen as being "anti-diversity" your argument doesn't matter because you're a misogynistic racist xenophobe.

Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It's not quite as bad as Derry/Londonderry , but it's certainly not neutral.

I don't think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.
Movie pass wont work for me. For $10 a month, I can watch 10 99¢ movie rentals on iTunes. For the cost of two people on movie pass, that can be 4 to 20 movies on iTunes/Amazon in a month.

I think moviepass is targeted at singles who go to movies less than 12 times a year and it helps bring that demography to the theaters, and probably spend more on concessions.

I dont understand why Theater chains are "terrified"
From the wikipedia article. linked in the ticket

> Shield Studies are available on all channels. Individual studies can be opt-out or opt-in and any and all data being collected will be declared openly. After confirming willingness to participation, a self expiring add-on will be installed on the user's machine.

Mozilla is only installing an experimental feature ass an add-on if they opt in.
The cognitive dissonance over at Facebook must be immense. The idea that the solution is to post more things on Facebook is absurd, considering that it's how they snare users.

I know many people who interact with other users non-stop -- they are addicted, and it's totally a waste of their time.
In NYC, coming out as a Trump supporter is a cardinal sin that will lose you friends.
"Valid examples of hypocrisy are whataboutism"
This has also been my experience with Stellar's support: radio silence.
Yes but you only need the transaction history for that, since you can reconstruct any block state you wish from the transactions.
This seems nitpicking. He unwillingly left his job due to pressure. It’s like when a company fired you and you respond with “I quit.”

The important fact is that he was forced to leave based on his political contributions supporting prop 8. Call it fired or resign or whatever you want, that’s the h important part of the story.
This is misleading. Huge amounts of nitrates are injected into the Midwest's soil, so much so that children cannot drink the groundwater and must be given bottled water. Yet the chart shows Nebraska and Kansas as having low levels of toxins released into the environment.

Many other toxins must have been omitted from this study.
Agreed, Damore's essay was a rambling, illogical mess. Only revered by weak minds who'd already been fooled by alt-right ideology. He deserved to be fired.

His conduct after his firing vindicated that decision too. The dullard even had his Twitter handle as "Fired For Truth", as if he'd written some incontrovertible work of brilliance, rather than the actual half-baked mess he spluttered up.
That's awesome. I am guessing you don't place a chip on your shoulder every morning either, just begging someone to knock it off.
> Before that I used TrueCrypt but it is no longer trustable.

Really? Why?
I understand changing the policy for new sales going forward, but changing it unilaterally from used sales seems wrong.
> What prevents future young women from being harassed by them and other creepy powerful men is seeing people like them losing their jobs.

Mmm-hmm. And what happens when your social movement loses steam over time or public attitudes toward it change and you lose your power to tear down these powerful men? Are those individuals going to remain enthusiastic supporters of your beliefs afterward? You know, deep down, what the answer is.
Is this something that applies to large corporate Silicon Valley companies only? I've only worked in small startups.
You have to walk a fine line and post some material, but not offensive. No response at all can be judged poorly. I’ve been in multiple situations where “silence = supporting the perp” so statements must be made.

If you’re completely off the grid it can be difficult to get jobs in tech.
With no explanation as yet offered, I note that some of these words are cliche or "checkbox" words in certain advocacy lexicons. The word "sustainable" is another example, and I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't included.
Barring significant medical improvements, of course. Designer babies will almost certainly be able to surpass those limits eventually and I wouldn't be too surprised if one of the many paths towards life extension technology pays off. (Senescent cell pruning, telomere extension/repair, whatever)
I voted for Trump and I'll vote for him again. Hi HN!
It was definitely snarky, but I did try to qualify the snark to be useful-snark, and not just plain snarky.

As for all these browsers, all of them(unless I'm mistaken) are based off of one of the big 3(Chrome, FF, Safari) so you still have to trust the big 3 to run these, for the most part, as they are all single-developer or maybe a very small team, and would be very hard pressed to catch underhanded attempts from any of the big 3 to embed any nastiness.
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”
― George Orwell, 1984
"How can anybody actually support Silicon Valley if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good?"

https://imgur.com/a/vGbLm
This thread needs to lighten up. It's one goofily named add-on pushed to a miniscule number of users in an opt in program. Firefox and their judgement are fine.
Your comment is filled with hyperbole, ad hominems and misinformation, making it seem like you’re angry with vegans for some reason. That has resulted in putting forth claims and beliefs without good enough backing - statements like “vegans can’t be healthy” and like vegan researchers will use meat eating to explain some other totally unrelated phenomena. It would help look at better sources of information. On that front, though not the best, I’d recommend watching this documentary called “Cowspiracy”.
I'd argue that popular society has an increasing false positive rate when detecting dogwhistles, and that the problem is exacerbated by increasingly partisan politics.
You’re always free to say it. What you’re talking about is being free of other people exercising their speech to denounce it.

Let’s be honest here. What these folks want is the ability to insult and attack people with impunity. That’s not what free speech is. It never was.
> If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that they were not allowed to say these things shortly after saying one or more of them ...

You'll have a few dollars for sure. However you probably also won't hear from people who couldn't say it. Because well, they ... didn't say it. The idea I think is that those who mention it claim they speak for some larger group who couldn't. Don't know how true that is, but that's the idea.
I think you misunderstood. I don't want to review the damn source code. I don't have time to do that. I am pretty sure the Mozilla developers are all better developers than I am as well, so my contributions there would be a complete waste of time.

However, when you decided that the source code I could review would be installed on my computer without my consent, then I do object. It's my computer. It runs things that I choose to run on it, not things your marketing/sales department thinks my computer should run.

Additionally I find your rant about "open source is for all of us to contribute and if you don't shut the fuck up" wholly ridiculous.
The whole email is based on archaic complicated system and it is long due for a disruption.

The RFCs are too many and too long and complicated to get them right at first try.

The SMTP protocol for example is based on ABNFs, which are not very machine friendly, and many implementations end up using regular expressions.

Then there is MIME and the quest for the main content of the message; there is no precise way to tell which of the parts of the MIME message are the main contents to be displayed to the user. Some clients use "multipart/alternative" and under that they have a "text/plain" and a "text/html" part. Others use "multipart/mixed" and add them there. Yet some others use "multipart/related". The you may have “multipart/alternative” under “multipart/mixed” and so on.

The way to achieve high-availability, is by using multiple MX records in the DNS for the mail exchangers. Imagine if today you had to get a list of host to try running your REST APIs against.

And of course achieving end to end encryption is not straight forward for the users.

IHMO it is time to come up with a new REST base API for email and short message exchange.
I can probably add a few more to this list:

"Income inequality is not an actual problem"

"The affordable care act was bad for America"

"It would be beneficial if we got rid of all government guaranteed loans for university tuition"

"People should be allowed to own automatic weapons"
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence.

No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia:

"Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical support, EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations."
And/or people are just banking on getting theirs & getting out before it gets bad.
The IPCC predicts that, in 2100, sea level at San Francisco will increase between 0.2 m and 1.0 m. It is possible to think that the best models of climate change are correct and that (a) the sea level is rising, and (b) most of San Francisco won't be submerged anyway.

I wouldn't buy property in Mission Bay, though.
Firefox is open source. Someone had to have committed code to make this happen, which you can use to go dig up the history if you want to.

But you're not going to do that. Which is your right; it's just hard to complain about not being consulted/not getting to review/etc. when you're talking about a piece of open-source software with public repositories and trackers. Anyone on earth is allowed to see what's going on in there.
The scale of the impact from rising sea levels will be much different than a single flood or hurricane. Government resources will be very thinly stretched and the bailouts will likely be much less than what people have invested in their property.
In my experience, most accusations of dog whistling on the internet range from misguided to incoherent. It's worth remembering what a dog whistle is, in the first place. It's a tactic used by politicians to assure a certain set of voters that you're on their side while maintaining public deniability of unpopular beliefs. It's a way of talking to the public that guarantees that each constituency hears what they want to hear.

How does any of that apply to what some dude says on the internet? It doesn't. Who would they even be dog whistling for or to? Nobody. It's nonsensical. It's really just a way to say, "I think you believe something other than what you're actually saying."

In other words, it's a polite way to call somebody a liar. Which is fine, I guess, but if you want to call somebody a liar, just call them a liar. We don't need a new term for that, especially one that already has a perfectly good meaning in another context.
You can say any of those things in Silicon Valley.

I mean, people might make some judgments about you. But that happens whenever you state any opinion, especially if it isn't the mainstream.

I think a lot of people are used to saying what's on their mind without consequence. They're used to other types of people remaining quiet on certain topics -- especially topics related to race, gender, and sexuality. And that's changing.

So: For some people it's a shock and they suddenly feel attacked from all sides for opinions they've been vocal about for years. Feels weird. But in many cases what's actually happening is people who have historically been silent are suddenly speaking up and offering their own differing opinions.

For example, it used to be acceptable to behave in certain ways towards women. Some men didn't see the problem because women wouldn't or couldn't speak up to make their opinions known. Now many women feel more empowered and it turns out many attitudes men have about women that seemed mainstream are in fact controversial (or, worse, actually destructive). And they always were. The opposing voices just hadn't been speaking. Now they are.
That article is completely out of line. For the record:

I think SF is doing a great job tackling homelessness, human excrement management, and broad daylight IV drug abuse. They just need to raise taxes to increase funding for all the really successful programs underway. I'm sure they've got a handle on it. It's a wonderful vacation destination for families.

Affordable housing will definitely be solved by higher taxes, implementing rent control, and subsidizing below market rents in luxury buildings. It's important to keep the character of our neighborhoods by preventing higher density housing.