skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Could you point me to details about how cross-channel rebalancing happens?

Lightning transactions are less like TCP packets, and more like water in a pipe. If I put 1 ml of water in a pipe full of water, 1 ml comes out the other end, but it's not the same water.

It works like this:

I can give you 1 apple, but I contractually obligate you to give 1 apple to my friend Bob, and if you don't you get penalized. You won't actually give Bob the apple I gave you, you'll give him another apple that you have, and if you don't know exactly where bob is, you could give an apple to someone else, telling them to eventually give an apple to bob "or else". (in LN, the "or else" is actually cryptographically secure pre-created transactions)

Because of this, each 1:1 channel is actually a network of 1:1 channels that can move in both ways.

In my first example, there was an unwritten implication that you would have a connection to coinbase somehow through another channel. So if I paid you 1 BTC for something, and you have a connection with coinbase (either directly, or through another channel), then if I buy from coinbase they can send that money "through" you to recharge our channel, without you really "spending" any money. And you are more than happy that happened, because now I can buy more from you directly through our channel, so you might incentivize that kind of routing by setting an extremely low, or even zero, or even NEGATIVE! fee.

>Does that imply that every channel needs to make an on-chain transaction every few days to reopen/keep the channel open?

No, locktimes only come into play in the case of non-compliance. If we have a channel with a 3-day locktime, on day 2 we can agree to re-up our lock for another 3 days (really at any time we can), we can also agree to close it right now if we want, all off the blockchain. Only when you either try to cheat, or become non-responsive do locktimes come into play.
Some problems have no solution. Go a bit further: Should we even be relying on AI as a substitute for human interaction? Will AI ever be capable of replacing an empathetic human? Even if it can, should it? What if I could replace one of your family members with a perfect simulacrum that was indistinguishable from the real thing, except you knew it was a simulacrum. Would you accept it?
Using a GitHub issue to say hi to Linus Torvalds
It’s still run by people. There is a possibility that they have good intentions.
Ripcord allegedly fires employee over claims of toxic work environment
Thanks for humoring me. For context, my day job is not software development; I'm a command judge advocate in the Marine Corps, meaning I manage the legal portfolio, which most coworkers (outside the Commanding Officer) have limited visibility on.

I find a lot of my coworkers have an attitude like yours, and I find it incredibly frustrating. We spend huge amounts of time talking about doing work, and not enough time actually doing work. I spend upwards of three hours a day just talking to people and not making any actual headway on mission-critical projects.

I agree with your reply to me that it may really come down to the different types of jobs. In your initial post it seemed like your position was that only rock stars rated "head down working" time. I think my position is more analogous to the "deep algorithm" module developer.
A few notes to help get this to the mainstream. Take these quotes:

* "persuade countries to set a global carbon price"

* "paid for by the emitters, or by the fossil fuel suppliers"

I think they should carefully examine how such efforts have failed or been sabotaged in the past. The issue most libertarians and conservatives have is not "co2 offsetting" itself, the issue is they don't like taxes and regulations because it interferes with individual liberties. From past experience, hinging an entire industry on a government-created market appears to be a sure path to failure. For all of the clever ingeniuty described here, I'm baffled why no one is addressing that, which seems to be the bigger issue.
You would still offer a "password reset" feature. Tell them to write it down or keep it in a password manager, and provide links.

Maybe call it an access code rather than a password to avoid "don't write down your password" training.
>>You just have a GDP reduction. That’s it.

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know what they're talking about.
It already works very well, especially after its improvement in the recent years after using neural networks. I've frequently been surprised by the quality of the translation it provides to Japanese sentences, not to mention between German and English. The test cases I put in in some other languages (e.g. Chinese) are really promising too.

Machine translation is a really hard problem. The messiness of language as a system, the importance of context in daily conversation etc. all play a part. Another layer of complexity is the gap between everyday usage and official, written form, which is also being tackled by researchers. You have to put this thing into perspective. Many of the old rule-based/Chomskyan software have been simply unusable for decades. New statistical approaches have been in use for barely 10 years, and industrial deep learning less than half a decade. There are still much more to come. The hype IMO is well justified.
I think you're right in this case, but sometimes thermodynamically sound machines can seem like cheating at first glance. Heat pumps[1], for example, can have greater than 100% thermal efficiency (although they do rely on reservoirs of heat to do it). Another example is the vortex tube[2], which can separate a compressed gas into hot and cold streams with no moving parts (and relies on pressure to do it).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube
This feels like it flies in the face of the usual advice for modern crypto. Don't try to be clever. Don't roll your own system. But it sounds like a novel language, and a lack of context, could actually cause headaches for those coming after you.
Machoo – Object-Oriented Programming in Object-Oriented Programming in the HURD
Evrei, crestini si musulmani in Maghreb
Thank you, Tyler. Appreciate the kind words - that's really great to hear. :)
No, they are secure, you just have to trust miners a bit more so they don't throw your transaction out of mempool. I would even argue that all the complications involved in setting up and using Lightning network make it less secure than 0-conf.
You are debating different thing. The debate is, can a business deny service, or offer degraded service instead, if no consent is given. Nothing I have read suggest otherwise.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3...

4. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
I’m surprised it doesn’t take advantage of the iPhone’s “neural engine” if it’s available.
The lightning network can also be used for atomic swaps to exchange cryptocurrencies with each other. If a vendor accepts lightning payments in theory you could pay with any cryptocurrency you want. In a future like that it's likely that bitcoin could become insignificant.
From the Adrian Colyer's review, we find the title might be misleading depending on what ownership model entails for a given developer’s use of the language:

“We had to make some concessions in our modelling: we do not model…

1. more relaxed forms of atomic accesses, which Rust uses for efficiency in libraries like Arc

2. Rust’s trait objects, which can pose safety issues due to their interactions with lifetimes

3. stack unwinding when a panic occurs, which can cause similar issues to exception safety in C++

4. automatic destruction, “which has already caused problems for which the Rust community still does not have a modular solution.”

5. a few details unrelated to ownership, such as type-polymorphic functions and “unsized” types.”

Also shows why it’s good to have a semantics in the beginning covering the whole language like with ML or later SPARK Ada. It forces language developers to spot and address these corner cases early on. Good news is that, like with SPARK, one might just subset their use of Rust to exclusively what has been proven with no use of anything else. Is anything on the list common enough in most Rust development where it can’t be avoided and must be verified later? I’ve obviously seen many people mention traits. Arc and automatic destruction safety not being proven is a bit ironic given they’re presumably there to boost safety versus raw pointers and manual destruction.

EDIT: Thanks for quick, clarifying replies about these. It's looking like a subsetting approach can work.
Yeah, and since coal is dead biomass one would think we can burn that too. I suppose it's possible that billions of years of moss growing on rocks has produced a lot of that biomass, and that it was never all in play at once. But people generally get pissed and defensive when I mention the coal thing. I've never had anyone even attempt to refute the idea that coal is carbon-neutral in scientific manner. That's what makes it so much fun to say.
Not everyone can used the last hype algorithm, whether because of library support, regulations or technical constraints.
Fwiw, we can go even further and define these combinators in terms only of typeclass constraints needed on the return monad, the "finally tagless" or "mtl" style.

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/parsers-0.12.8/docs/Text...
Great article! Also, I was surprised at how short and readable the original paper was. This is a really nice follow up.

I only recently started learning Haskell seriously, and it was surprising to learn that “Applicative” is a more recent discovery.
Sorry, I didn't mean in layman metaphors but the actual mechanics. (I am technical and fairly familiar with Bitcoin, I'm just having a hard time convincing myself from reading the Lightning whitepaper and I'm hoping to find some alternative explanations that are clearer.)

Like what kind of transactions/operations need to happen between nodes for two channels to get rebalanced?

> No, locktimes only come into play in the case of non-compliance. If we have a channel with a 3-day locktime, on day 2 we can agree to re-up our lock for another 3 days (really at any time we can), we can also agree to close it right now if we want. Only when you either try to cheat, or become non-responsive do locktimes come into play.

Right, I understand that it's for non-compliance, that's why I was assuming that this part has to happen on-chain.

Aren't timelocks enforced on chain? How can we agree to extend our timelock without committing that agreement to the blockchain?

I understand that the premise of timelocks is that if there's a conflict, the channel collapses and the timelock buffer period allows the victim a period to claim restitution (hence needing to stay online or have a service do it on their behalf).
This is absurd. You keep insisting on perfection or nothing at all. There is such a thing as incremental progress.

Google Translate is supremely useful in the absence of a better alternative. Nobody is contesting that human translation is better than Google Translate, but a human translator isn't always available. Google Translate is better than nothing at all.

A child's first many, many attempts at language are absolute gibberish, then slowly individual words, then combinations of words, then gradually more complex sentences etc -- gradually over several years. When you child first says "mama", the common response is excitement, not berating the child and anyone excited that "mama" isn't Wordsworth, and asking if just saying "mama" is acceptable, why aren't we all just communicating using single words all the time?

A child being able to express itself at all using language is better than it not being able to, and cause for celebration, and so too it is with Google Translate.
What the paper demonstrates is that if you have a correct borrow checker, and you have the ability to create types using `unsafe` which can extend the semantics of the language to cover things that the borrow checker cannot cover, you can write proofs that demonstrate that the language is still sound given the addition of those types.

This helps demonstrate that one of the fundamental design goals of Rust, have a simple but limited system of borrowing built into the language, and allow more complex forms of managing reference types safely built on top of it as library features using `unsafe`, is a fundamentally sound design. In other words, you don't have to treat the language and all libraries using `unsafe` as one large system that you need to prove soundness of, but you can do modular proofs of the core language, and each library that adds a new type of memory and reference management, independently.

Those bugs you reference are simply bugs in Rust's borrow checker. The language used for the RustBelt paper, LambdaRust, is a language that is much simpler than Rust itself, making the borrow checking much easier but the language not as convenient to use (it is not intended to be used at all, just to act as a model of Rust).

The things you reference are simply bugs, but because of the fairly expressive syntax that Rust offers actually getting the borrow checker right can be be difficult in some cases.

I don't think that there are any theoretical concerns about the ability to write a correct borrow checker, just practical issues with the current implementation not correctly handling certain cases.
Depends on the game. I just got a nasty surprise with Prey (2017 single player game) which refused to run when my internet connection died.
महाशिवरात्रि: शिवलिंग पर भूलकर भी न चढ़ाए यह चीजे नही तो  II Astrology
Sources? What I know doesn‘t fit your story. The most of the traditional houses aren‘t on the rubbles at all but on the water tanks, which are at least a few hundred years old.
My daily driver is an iPhone, the touch area in the top left is nowhere near as good as the 'physical' Android button
I was struck by the fact that the bottoms of the canals is just mud--no trash (at least in the photos in the article). The article mentioned the "filth buried at the bottom of the canals", but they seem remarkably clean.
You'd probably be running the evaluation version not a pirated copy then.
Hmmm. I’m not convinced this policy is good for employees. You know what is? Having multiple income streams and lots of extra money.
if you have to trust third parties, whats the point?
I _Believe_ the client displays this information, buy I could be wrong about that. I know I get a few helpful emails, starting with a couple weeks notice though.
Apple uses a different model format[0], so tensorflow models need to be converted first before they can be used. So Apple would need to add support for this tensorflow lite/mobile model format to work in Core ML.

[0]https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreml/converting_...
Casino Online – Saint Helen's Island
> They pretend their system actually solves machine translation, for real, like AlphaZero solved Go.

The post you linked to makes no such claim. The strongest claim to, well, anything, is that it produces "reasonable" translations between language pairs it has never seen.
Decomposing plant matter creates C02 and methane, so Hugelkultur only suquesters carbon for short periods. Biochar, a.k.a. terrapreta which is buried wood charcoal, on the other hand is thought to be inactive in the soil for closer to 10k years.

One can combine energy production from wood gasification, which produces char-ash and biochar to produce a carbon negative electricity source. Taking this a step further one can use the Fischer–Tropsch process on the resultant syngas to produce liquid fuels.
> it comes across as a nasty case of naval gazing

Was that not the entire point of the piece? I am no learned fool, in the art of grammar, though, I do enjoy reading of those for whom it carries such importance.

My grammar is the product of the Pennsylvania public school system (paid for by the PA property tax), but it left me woefully unprepared for my private college experience. Perhaps this is why I turned to Computer Science; the software worked or did not work (though it was required to be no more than 80 columns wide, and laced with documentation).

Computational languages are generally magical in their strict adherence to grammatical rules. Perl being perhaps the least strict, and Java towards the end of the most. Many of our programming languages now come with standard linters, so even the variance allowed in the languages has been reduced to the the ruling class’ ideas of proper form. Something this article touches on in semicolon usage, visual style, is also being driven from programming languages; this comes in the form of tools like rustmt. Style in computational language has taken on a strong form of dictatorial guidance, and I’m a big fan; reducing the complexity of reading code helps reduce confusion, which, of course, reduces bugs.

It would be sad if English had a linter and an eng_USfmt, then the art of writing would be dead, and we’d have fewer things at which to naval gaze.

> English does not require an Academy of Immortals to look after it.

Many will agree with this, as do I (or, me included), but proper form should still be taught, if for no other reason than to give people confidence in their writing.

p.s. I was impressed at how long the author held out on the usage of an emoticon, but disappointed that they could not bring themselves to use emojis.
I was contemplating getting an MRI scan of my brain before I went to college. At age 48 I can only assume it is good for my brain to stress it learning something useful.

This isn't my first time going to school old. At age 34 I started University but for various reasons dropped out early.

I have to say going to school now even compared to age 34 just 14 years ago is quite different socially and technologically.

Maybe my brain will benefit from all this learning.
Wow, I guess it's dead then /s

It's an evolving software still in pre-alpha state. But the core idea is solid and if you follow the development you'll see the strides of progress that is being done on all fronts.

To your points.

1. Depending on the options you set to your channels, you could have a window of days (or anything the two parties agree to), to act in case the other party tries to broadcast outdated TXs i.e. steal funds.
Also you don't need to have a computer constantly online, you can offload the task to Watchtowers, software dedicated to do that for multiple users concurrently. (You also can have multiple Watchtowers as backups). Also, I imagine it could even be a mobile app. So this is a non-issue.

2. Routing will keep being improved but it's already pretty good and the way you present it screams FUD.

3. Currently crazy low fees aside, LN basically enables the multiplication of on-chain TXs population. I think your assumption is that the retailer will close and reopen a channel for every LN payment they receive which it makes no sense whatsoever from any point of view.

4. If by huge you mean $100 of which the fee is $0.5, sure.
You can add any amount you want on an LN channel. Basically it's like a hot-wallet, e.x you can add $1500 for $0.5 fee, and casually spend it for coffees and other small expenses with lower TX fees than a satoshi (since LN supports fees at the millisatoshi = 1/1000 satoshi level).

P.S: This FUD-wave is pretty pitiful, at least get some real arguments. I hope even more people start to recognize that a lot of people have incentives to attack new tech in order to push their narratives for their altcoins or w/e.
>>> The intruiging part of this is they should never have been able to get a GMail address using a variation of my name (say my removing or adding a .) since GMail says they disallow it

Dots are ignored a in gmail address.

johnsmith@gmail.com and john.smith@gmail.com is the same inbox.
How the Eagles Followed the Numbers to the Super Bowl
That's not quite how it works.

Bad sectors were expected by copiers like Locksmith or Copy//+. They were nothing special. The copiers tried to make sense of them by identifying the address and data markers, which were often altered (D5 AA 96, ...) but if they encountered an error, they would just signal it and move on.

The cracker then had to take over, e.g. analyze the raw content of the track or just start disassembling and find out how to read these malformed tracks (or sometimes, they contained specific bit patterns that didn't represent any data but were verified by the copy protection).

Source: I still crack Apple ][ games now and then for the fun of it.
I think a combination of both is required for optimal results. Lightning is good enough for micropayments.
On chain transactions are good for large payments. The only problem with on-chain scaling is that keeping a payment history for the entire planet is not really feasable. You have to somehow prune old data from the blockchain.
bcrypt is old enough to vote this year
“For most of us, our dreams exceed our limitations, and our ambitions lie far beyond our capabilities“

Not from my experience, no. Most people I know - the vast majority - don’t even try chasing the dreams they have. They are not failing because they’re not even in the game. Most of them do not have ambitions beyond those one degree apart from biological sustenance; they just are.
Nature already developed this technology: trees.

More seriously: perhaps it's not such a bright idea to build a for-profit industry on the concept of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Plants need it and if we overdo it for the sake of maximising profits, the ecosystem will suffer (alarmism: we'll all starve).

Just plant more trees, please.
It's a common misconception that block size is somehow related to decentralization. In fact you don't need a whole blockchain to verify transactions securely, you only need a few last blocks at max. Also full nodes add nothing to the network, they have no vote, only miners and actual users do.
> I think I would rather have rapid security updates than an update to the dialer....

As would I. Why have you chosen to use a platform with slow security updates then? Android One and Google phones get OS security updates on the same cadence as the iPhone and application security updates (including the browser) nearly immediately. The last iOS update alone had three slowly delivered WebKit fixes. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208463

> So are you now saying that Google that probably has more information on user behavior than any other company on Earth besides Facebook can't market?

Apple's clearly fooled you with its fast updates marketing. I consider Google to be very nearly incompetent at using the data it has to get more users. It was the first company to scale systems enough to log everything, but since then, many companies have figured out how to extract more dollar value out of their logs, while Google has done nothing useful business-wise.
If you presume rrdharan generated his password as a string of random alphanumeric characters and round that to there being 64 of those, he revealed $32 / n pick 4$ bits of entropy.
Where $n pick 4$ is the number of combinations of length 4 drawn from n.

That only works if you presume his password was generated as a string of random bits though.
If the password was generated as a dice-ware password [1] with 5 characters this reveals roughly 2 bits of entropy. For we know he doesn't use -, _ or nothing as his word-separator.
Those 2 bits aren't included in the calculation that states his diceware password has about 65 bits of entropy though. (5 words from a list of 8000)
65 bits feels like plenty to me.

[1] http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html