skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You grossly misjudge the size of the crytomarket in general, and Bitcoin market specifically. The size has been much larger than you seem to think, not only during this craze, but it has been growing steady for years.
Yes, there are people that will pay you 30K$ (which is nothing) in a microsecond on any of the major exchanges.
By what standard, exactly ?

The dollar certainly has had 30% "shocks" in a year compared to gold, which is the usual standard. Most famously, obviously, 1971, but there have been more normal years with such changes as well.

You could also say that the US dollar is really backed by the US economy. Well, the US economy is S&P500 + a few percentage points. Well that has dropped, and gained more than 30% in a year as well (depending on the foreign currency you use to measure this, or if you're talking in gold price, we've seen 60% drops happen. Of course the S&P 500 is worth more than all the gold in the world, so ... this is a bit of an artificial thing to do. Truth is that if someone started buying the S&P 500 using large quantities of Gold, that wouldn't work, so perhaps that is actually right).

Shocks is between quotes because they weren't really shocks. Everybody in finance was perfectly aware of the "real" price for the US dollar, in 1971, but political hubris and re-election factors did not allow the government and congress to admit to this, until every other avenue was exhausted, including lying, cheating (not charging the same price to everybody despite their own laws demanding they do so), fraud, and so on.

Or to put it another way, one might even make the comment that the dollar lost such amounts against gold for the worst possible reason : a refusal by the US government to settle debt for the agreed price (specifically, as has come out, the refusal of the US government and the congress to honor the agreed-upon exchange rate the French government demanded they pay). Surprisingly when I tell my bank that my loan is now only against half my house, such flexibility is not extended to me, and congress in fact has laws preventing this ... weird, since they clearly see it perfectly moral & valid to do this themselves, and even to do it to pay off (their favored) banks.

30% changes in the value of the dollar have happened before, and in all likelihood, will happen again. Granted, it's been a while.
What you're really asking is "does anyone think that $19k for Bitcoin is undervalued?" And there are certainly people who think that.

So what is the fair value of Bitcoin? Well, it's a new economic idea [1], so there's not a lot of prior art to gauge here. There's no P/E ratio, no rent/price ratios, nothing of that sort to give you at least a baseline feel for "does this seem frothy?"

Indeed, its value is ultimately based on projection: whatever you think Bitcoin could do, what values it might have, that's the valuation you're going to give to it. And people have given really daft ideas of its value: I've seen someone seriously argue that Bitcoin is useful for people who lack phones or internet. Other people argue that $19k is cheap, if Bitcoin somehow replaced all fiat currency. So there's no shortage of people willing to bid prices higher, and that's not counting speculators hoping to make money on a "free" get-rich-quick scheme.

[1] I say this as someone skeptical of high valuations of Bitcoin. Just because something is new and transformative doesn't mean it's valuable--just ask CDOs.
Safari got this latest version of the HSTS preload list very quickly too. I don't know what their rollout process is, but it was almost simultaneous. It's true that Firefox and Edge are lagging behind by many months, which is unfortunate.
Look, i'm not convinced that bitcoin is worth the price it's at right even right now either, but that's just not true.

The network effect is extremely strong in the cryptocurrency space. Everything in the cryptocurrency space supports bitcoin, and fractions of everything support anything else. Payment processors, exchanges, hardware wallets, software wallets, secure storage and backup systems, etc... All of it is focused on bitcoin first, and adds others later (if ever).

If you want to buy or sell bitcoin, you've got tons of repudible options, you want to buy or sell monero? You've got 1/3 of the options, and most of them are small and shady or don't deal with fiat currencies in any way.

If that's not a network effect, I don't know what is.
Watch SpaceX’s last Falcon 9 rocket launch for 2017
I bought an AMD card for my Linux desktop this year, because they have better open source drivers then nVidia :)
Before that, I bought nVidia or Intel.
It's a good feeling to run without that ugly nvidia-drivers blob.
I chose bitcoin because for several reasons:

1. I believe in the technology approach bitcoin is taking over any other coin (I believe functionality like smart contracts should be a side chain to the main bitcoin chain).

2. It has had a firm 21m supply cap since the beginning

3. It is the most decentralized

4. It has the largest userbase -- it's a more widely adopted currency

5. It has the most proof of work behind it (most of the mining power in the world targets the bitcoin blockchain). Proof of work is what keeps the chain secure from malicious actors.

6. The ledger is public

Something like gold can't be audited. If I bought gold, I wouldn't want to store that in my house. I'd need to trust a third party to store it for me. Who's auditing that third party? Is my gold only mine on paper? Bitcoin is auditable, gold is not (for the average person).

Cash is a depreciating asset -- at best, it loses 2% per year (likely much more).
Perhaps not millions, but some charge money to host the torrenting and then streaming of the resulting files.

https://alternativeto.net/software/bitport-io/
right, lots of fund managers accept that crashes happen periodically...the permabears like Hussman assume they STAY low over a long period of time yet society retains enough order to let them fulfill their thesis

if the market crashed that low for a decade, you would see massive regime change in every democratic nation and the rich would be stripped bare
This company has ~$750mm under management, and has several funds that manage to have both a) high expense ratios and b) horrible performance over the short and long terms.

Serious question, for those who work in finance: how do companies like this stay in business? Shouldn't the transparency of their poor performance have long since driven them out of business?

Semi-serious question, also for those who work in finance: what are the barriers to entry to starting funds for those of us who could do better than this guy?

Edit: I'm also stunned that anyone running any kind of "growth" fund could manage to lose money the last few years.
Be careful as I'm not sure of myself regarding the protocol, (and you may end-up having your order executed two times, or maybe it has some built-in features to prevent this). You can probably experiment on bitcoin testnet. Depending on the amounts it may be judicious to find an expert to help you do the transaction. Good Luck.
Renewable Energy: Wind Power Is Now the Cheapest Energy in India
Tech Titans Wage War in China’s Next Internet Revolution
OP: you’ll find you got a lot of very vague, broad, range of answers. I think it might help if you try to find a subset of security that you’re interested in or would like to tackle.

It’s very hard these days to be a complete and effective generalist in security, let alone be good at a range of security stuff while also being great at data science.

I’d consider focusing on appsec for a year, get a job attacking or defending apps for a year, and then you’ll have a basic understanding of the problem space.
They want people to buy their more expensive card for ML stuff. The silicon probably isn't all that different.
It's hexdump. It outputs a hexdump alongside ASCII rendering (when possible) of a file.

In Debian it's in the `bsdmainutils` package.

I found it very useful for doing the initial guess work about the binary printer control language I was looking at.
Suppose it were a social media site. Now that attacker has a working account with someone else's email address, and that email address is considered verified by the site.

The attacker could then use that account to post threats, harass people, and so on. If he goes far enough that either law enforcement wants to come after him or someone wants to sue him and the site is served with a warrant to reveal information about the poster what they are going to cough up is the verified email address of the account holder.

That will be followed to the email provider, and from there to the email address holder. The email holder's claims that he never made the social media account are going to sound unconvincing--he clicked the confirm link to make the account!

Remember, a civil suit only requires a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That verified email might be enough to reach that standard.

In a criminal case it would not be enough...but if the matter was serious enough it might be enough to justify a warrant to search the email address owner's place and computer. At the very least that would be very annoying, and at the worst it could uncover things that the email holder does not want brought to law enforcement attention.
You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness.

Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it.

I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive.

The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.
You may be the first person I've ever 'met' that knows about Ground Control!

I didn't play the first, but I remember putting GC2 on an under-powered laptop and playing for hours at 5fps! Pretty sure that game is the reason I need prescription glasses now.
> And you don't need math to explain that.

There's an argument that you need math to explain it because it is math -- just not what we're taught to think of as "math".

One of my gripes with the current education system is that it makes it hard to recognize when math appears in situations not explicitly involving numbers, equations, and matrices.
Nope!

That's the exciting part of an asset with no fundamental value.
Understanding Bitcoin is hard. Here is a response to some of the criticism:

> Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and everyone else’s computing time is completely wasted.

This is a misunderstanding of what PoW is http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

> The system already features a rather steep cost per transaction, and hardly any of those transactions are for the purchase of goods and services

Second-layer scaling allows an arbitrary number of off-chain transactions based for a single on-chain transaction. See https://lightning.network
I'm curious - what would you need OpenGL compatibility profile for?
Begging for money?
Python 3.6: A quick look – PyCharm Blog
> In my book, manipulation by government for political or plain self-interest reasons counts as compromising.

The problem is that «manipulation» by governments as you call it, is part of its toolkit, and a lot of empirical evidences shows that the cost of doing nothing when something should have been done is orders of magnitude worse than «manipulation for political reasons». Take for instance Germany is the 1920s: the hyper-inflation during the early 20s was a huge mess, but it had much lower consequences than the inaction after the crisis of 1929 with a huge economic slowdown caused by deflation.

A government not controlling its currency is catastrophic when something go wrong, you can see what happened to southern Europe during the last decade. I'm not saying the Quantitative Easing is the best way to go out of a financial crisis, but for sure it's better than doing nothing and waiting for the market to correct itself.[1]

Imo, people afraid of the Government and wanting to drastically limit its power are a bit like anti-vaxer: vaccines can indeed cause problems (and they do, a few people have dramatic secondary effects, like with any medicine) and must be controlled, but wanting to abolish them is suicidal. The anti-state psychology was understandable during the cold war, as people had a good example of what can happen when a government has total power on the economy and society as a whole, yet this irrational fear is really polluting the debate when it comes to defining the economic policies.

[1]: scientific evidences are hard to find in Economics, but this particular topic was the point of the Keynes / Hayek controversy during the great depression and, on this particular topic, Keynes proved right.
It's fine on those services, just rotate IP addresses and ports regularly. Don't put too many users on the same proxies at once.
The most striking moment to me in my IPE class was when the professor, after we'd covered how governments and, in democracies (by proxy), We the People, bring modern economies into being and choose, to some degree (other governments and a variety of natural factors have more than a little say), the shape they'll take, innocently asked, "so, why have an economy?"

Yours is a better answer than what any of us came up with at the time.
That's like saying I can pay my taxes in barrels of oil, I just have to sell them first so that I can pay in my government's currency.

Like, what accountant would be capable of planning finances for a business where every single liability is denominated in a super-volatile asset? The whole thing is nuts.
actually, the corporate nanny state will just bail them out. See: Long Term Captial Management, S&L crisis/Continental Illinois under Reagan/Bush Sr, 2008 crisis

They have an implicit subsidy, Too Big To Fail: access to cheap credit because creditors know the nanny state will bail them out.

Why don't we call it welfare when we give money to the rich? Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. We don't need market discipline, but YOU do
Mandrake Linux founder has started eelo: an open source mobile OS withmore privacy
That's definitely a good point and I think it would probably apply in some cases. From my standpoint I"m most interested in the leadup to a collapse where governments start manipulating currency to greater degrees, destabilizing the countries economy (to the eventual point of temporary collapse) further than it otherwise would. I'm not sufficiently well read on the subject to argue deeply about it, just always seemed like if cryptocurrencies were viable they could perhaps alleviate or improve those situations. Maybe modern Venezuela is a good example. I'm not well read enough on either topic to take a strong stance but if it holds water, it's always seemed like a very promising thing for humanity.
Hacked Dog Pics Can Play Tricks on Computer Vision AI
Based on what he wrote, it seems like he's just guessing and doesn't actually know where this stuff is hosted.
My safely driving 30,000 miles this year doesn't mean driving it into a pole isn't a crash.
Serious question: what value would gold have in a post-apocalyptic world? If I'm selling something, why should I take gold in exchange for it, instead of something useful, like ammunition or food or water?
Why You Shouldn't Fear 'Slaughterbots'
Hey, WoofCoin is going to change the world! Only WoofCoin uses blockchain technology to finally solve the age old question "who's a good boy?"
Nonsense. It has been used in the past to refer to cryptography, but it's just an abbreviation, and it can easily change as our language evolves.
Except that some of them (rapidgator, keep2share, mega, ul.to etc) have legs. They've been around a while now and dont use ads, at least not ads that arent easily blocked by 99% of users. They are shady, but thepiratebay is still a thing. Being shady doesnt mean you are unreliable or your existance fleeting.
the price is going down because an exchange got hacked. that is never good for people and the cryptocurrencies
Luckily for them it didn't have to go that far, but he did pull it and they immediately took off. He then got in his car and called the police to report what happened.
It depends. If you’re expecting it to land you a job, no. If you’re trying to add to your arsenal of skills, maybe (arguably you could self teach a lot of it and save your money). If you’re trying to get past HR in some big company who use it’s metric, yeah sure. It also depends on what you want to do - I gather it’s useful for netpens but useless if you want to do appsec, which is a huge chunk of pentest work. What are your end goals?
It would be your loss Daniel Gackle.
Very anectodal...
I think this might explain short term behavior but not the long term one. The same argument applies to beanie babies and other speculative bubbles that eventualy did crash.
New York doesn't have enough money to get it done. The politicians are too busy paying for all the election promises they've made over the last 50 years. And they absolutely need to cut the bureaucracy (code word for 'unions' and 'government agencies') that are deeply entrenched in the government.

I don't think New York can do it until the people get tired of watching the decay and the current political machine gets voted out.

BTW: If you disagree please talk out your points.
He may have raised funds 20 years ago and over 20 years delivered good returns. Also, underperforming S&P is not necessarily the right metric - as part of an overall portfolio that includes S&P, his funds may provide diversification benefits.
To answer the question as to why can't random joe raise that money - the answer is, raising money is harder than you think.
Wouldn't the problem be that the bikes could be moved by people who want to get the last person in trouble?
I like https://cryptowat.ch/
sorry but the only answer any investor should care about is achieving their financial goals over the expected investment timeframe.

markets tend to rise and as a result market declines tend to be temporary

the permabear thesis appeared in the early 80s when the US was in a rut and we also became a debtor nation. the permabear thesis -that debt and fiat currency would produce an economy favoring the pessimistic (but not completely imploding to the point of collapse, because you can't invest in that), proved to be wrong over a thirty year window

if you have an axe to grind, you will always find a permabear manager willing to tell you tales of doom...it will cost you your financial goals though
“Be Fearful When Others Are Greedy and Greedy When others are fearful”

-Warren Buffet
Christmas Tech Support – A guide for helping relatives with computer security
The $17 is the projected annual budget. The guy just started donating $2 this month ;)

Yes, you are right. I should aim for a wider audience. To be honest I'm totally to blame for not making more of an effort with marketing.

I will make more of an effort next year. I actually wasn't even expecting the $2 donation - it did cheer me up.
Understanding AWS cost best practices
I suggest we just randomly say your username or password is incorrect.

"Your username is incorrect"
"Your password is incorrect"
"You hit the wammy. Try logging in again."

That way, you never know what's going on at all.
I find myself in agreement with most of the author's statements, especially regarding bitcoin and paper wealth.

I also like the following statement -- "If our policy makers are interested in boosting long-term structural U.S. GDP growth, they should be providing direct and targeted tax incentives for real investment, education, research & development, and other factors that could, over time, increase our nation’s productive capacity."

Too bad our political system no longer has that capability, if it ever did. It seems tax incentives find their way to the most powerful factions instead of the most productive ends.

Real Investment - too many parasitic factors.
Education - too many parasitic factors.
R&D - too many parasitic factors.
>As someone who owns and believes in cryptocurrency, I'm actually glad this happened. I was getting sick of all the get rich quick people who've been driving the price lately, even for the coins that shouldn't be pumping.

you say this as if it won't happen again and again. 95%+ of crypto ownership is pure speculation. There are coins in the top 15 that don't even have existing networks yet.
That's what the British thought about the East India Company. Then what happened?
The bike company is ultimately the one responsible for the bike.
Looks like people have already started buying the dip.

I've found the recent discussions around BTC and cryptocoins on this forum incredibly illuminating, from both the bulls and the bears.

I'm beginning to think perhaps there's no point in discussing the fundamental financial flaws of cryptos, or their lack of inherent value. I'm beginning to think their main utility in is meeting a human need that's existed since antiquity - the need to gamble.

As long as a solvent exchange remains, and another ready to come along when it fails, there will always be large numbers of folks entering the casino.

Perhaps the only thing that can stop it now is strict government regulation.
There are many extremely talented artists, musicians, writers, educators, ..., who don't get paid (much). If you're doing this with the intent making money, then you should a) reconsider or b) leverage this project and experience to get contracting or consulting work — which, thankfully, does pay.
It's perfectly logical they might say that. They'd probably go somewhere else if there was more money there. You met them in a working environment because they're here primarily for money.
Speak for yourself. We do.

It took a while for 28.8K modems to catch up with bandwidth needs, and that's part of the reason people thought the internet sucked and was a joke compared to all its promises. I think even today people snort about pets.com as the poster child of the dot-com boom. Then their Amazon Pantry order arrives, which they consume without irony.
Only if "arbitrary number" doesn't include an arbitrary number of addresses. You still need a transaction to set up a channel. Lightning shifts a cap on transactions to a cap on users while assuming that most people transact repeatedly with the same person and that btc users will be happy to lose the trust guarantees that btc brings over traditional services.
The UK, but my point was that just because people have access to something doesn't mean they can actually access it - if it's way too expensive for most people, for example. Similar thing with healthcare in the US I guess.

I pay $50 a month for the internet and two mobile contracts, with 4GB data each and unlimited texts/minutes, from BT.

TV is free (freeview, with hundreds of channels). You can pay for Sky or Virgin and get every channel ever, but why would you.
that funds performance is abysmal. but comparing it to a long only fund is not the right benchmark, Long/Short or Market Neutral would be more apt, making the relevant returns less egregious (as they've had a tough run as well).

As of 9/30 the fund had a gross exposure of 149% and was 32% net long [1], so he's employing leverage as well.

[1]http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/HSGFX/quote.html

Edit: looks like some of that leverage is on the form of options so maybe the actual math is different.